California Congressman Resigns, Admits to Taking Bribes
By VOA News 28 November 2005
Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham from California A Republican congressman from California has resigned after pleading guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion charges.
Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham entered guilty pleas in a San Diego District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail and wire fraud, as well as tax evasion, for under-reporting his income in 2004.
Afterwards, he resigned at a news conference in San Diego, breaking into tears as he said he disgraced his office.
Cunningham admitted he took $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to co-conspirators.
The Cunningham, 63, could receive a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $350,000 fine.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Are Your Children Being Recruited to Deal Drugs?
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301486
DATE: 11/27/2005 TIME: 1517
ARREST DATE: 11/27/2005 TIME: 1015
LOC: MICHIGAN & DEBERRY AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: MURATORE FIRST: BRANDON MIDDLE: JOEL MICHA DOB: 06/03/1986 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 5 09 WT: 130 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: NOT LISTED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11361(B) FEL ORIGINAL $30,000.00
______________________
Charge Detail
HS11361. (a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in unlawfully transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, whounlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer,or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
___________________________________
DATE: 11/27/2005 TIME: 1517
ARREST DATE: 11/27/2005 TIME: 1015
LOC: MICHIGAN & DEBERRY AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: MURATORE FIRST: BRANDON MIDDLE: JOEL MICHA DOB: 06/03/1986 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 5 09 WT: 130 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: NOT LISTED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11361(B) FEL ORIGINAL $30,000.00
______________________
Charge Detail
HS11361. (a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in unlawfully transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, whounlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer,or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
___________________________________
At the time of this arrest, 2 males were detained. Perhaps one being a minor and thus not reported on the adult arrest report data. Do you know where your CHILDREN ARE? Are they walking around near this area of town???
Other Arrests are below and are updated daily.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
From the Email INBOX:
Regarding the article by Ralph Megna,(P-E Nov 14 Eminent Domain Hysteria) I feel compelled to respond. and no NEWS Paper will Print My Letter:
Mr. Megna speaks to the use of eminent domain as a tool for governments to take land for roads, parks and bridges. The only bridge Mr.Megna built in Grand Terrace was the one from our city treasury to his bank account. Mr. Megna is or was the financial consultant to the City of Grand Terrace as well as the City of Fontana. The City of Fontana taxpayer now is the owner of a $2,480,955,957 redevelopment debt. That was as of 2003 and made them the second largest redevelopment indebted city in the state. I'm sure it has grown since.
Mr. Megna brought the Outdoor Adventure Center plan to the City of Grand Terrace. The City of Grand Terrace bought his idea, lock, stock and barrel. They bought land and went on his plan for over a year before making the citizens aware of this shopping center that would include a lake for testing boats and jet ski's. Mr. Megna's contract for this project, signed Oct 3, 2003 would pay him and his company $255.00 an hour for "consulting" on the Outdoor Adventure Center. The City Council did not vote approval of the OAC until Oct.9. This shows it was a done deal no matter what the citizens of Grand Terrace felt. So has it been with every project brought to Grand Terrace. The City Council disregards the outcry's of it's citizens and caters to the developers. All of Grand Terrace was declared blighted when they incorporated in 1978 and the whole of the city declared a redevelopment project. So no ones home is safe. If need be the council will create a zone for your project rather than a project for the zone. As shown by the recent Senior Housing Project vote by this council. The city, over the objections of many, plowed ahead on the Outdoor Adventure Center spending millions of dollars on what has now been deemed a failed project plan Mr. Megna authored. He was not alone. Our City planning director Mr. Knootz, Nolte and Associates, for whom Mr. Koontz works three days a week, and our City Manager Mr. Schwab were the driving force behind the project and should be some of those people Mr. Megna speaks about that should be held accountable. Don't hold your collective breaths.
The Grand Terrace Partners that now have taken over the project did a market and feasibility study on the Menga plan and found it to be not feasible nor marketable.
The home owners in this project area were threatened with the use of eminent domain by the city, as have been, and still are, the home owners in the Town Center project on Barton Road.
Mr. Megna's comments on the urban legend that some faceless bureaucrat is coming to take your home is not accurate. They have faces and we know who they are. They are the developers, that have latched on to the cash cow called Redevelopment. They are the City Councils and the staffs of City Halls and City Managers that place the well being of their developer friends over that of those that elected them. We can't allow ourselves to make that mistake again.
Mr. Megna stated that a public agency that is coming to take your home by eminent domain and pay you less than market value and give it to Wal-Mart is hysteria that passes for thoughtful discourse. That is not the case in Grand Terrace. They are giving it to Lowes and Stater Brothers. They used the ruse of a new public library to incorporate eminent domain into the Town Center project. We have a library now that is under funded and the new one will cost the taxpayers of Grand Terrace $7500 a month to rent. Even though our city manager said at a meeting no city funds would be used to pay the rent on the library,two days later in a P-E story he stated that the rent would come from the general fund or from the redevelopment agency. This rent will be paid to Jacobson Family Holding, the developer. The library will be placed in between a Lowes, those seeking day labor jobs and a super Staters.
Mr. Megna claims that the use of eminent domain rarely happens in the taking of private homes and when it does they pay 20 to 30% more than market value. At least in Grand Terrace a precedent has been set with the recent purchase of a home for $1,200,000 by the city. So if your home is to be taken you should receive the same price per square foot as they paid for that house and land. Look at the cases across America. The majority of them are not for "roads, bridges and public parks". The cases that are brought to court and public attention are the taking of homes for developers like Mr Megna. They are for shopping centers, high rise condos and commercial ventures. It is the taking of private homes to enrichen the developer, as is the case in Grand Terrace and across this nation. Any revenue generated by the use of redevelopment agency funds for a project does not go back to the general fund of the city. It goes to the redevelopment agency for more redevelopment. This means that tax money that should go for schools, road repair, law enforcement and the services that taxes are paid for, go into the pockets of developers. Redevelopment agencies are the only branch of government that can issue bonds without voter approval. Again is the case here in Grand Terrace.
Again Mr. Megna speaks to public figures that are accountable and understand the seriousness of eminent domain. So far in Grand Terrace the only public figure who understands this seriousness is Planning Commissioner Bidney, who, when asking Mr. Megna if eminent domain was going to be used to displace people for his Outdoor Adventure Center had to resort to pounding on the dias and raising his voice to get a straight answer from Mr. Megna. The answer was yes. Mr. Bidney was the only one who voted against the project with the statement "that if it were his home that was to be taken he would be very concerned".
Nowhere in Mr. Megna's article does he show concern for the person who may loose what may have been their life long home to the greed of developers or "consultants" He blathers on about development and needing "real leadership" to further his goals.I might add that since Mr. Megna's Outdoor Adventure Center has been shown to be folly and he has made his thousands and thousands of dollars off the taxpayers of Grand Terrace, no one has seen hide nor hair of him. It appears he sold his project, made his money, and left for greener pastures. If you visit his website, Empire Development Solutions, see if you can find any of these public roads, bridges and parks he speaks about. It all looks like commercial development he is involved in.
So when Mr. Megna says he only knows of one home in 35 years that was to be taken by eminent domain by redevelopment may I remind him of the several his project in Grand Terrace were going to take and the ones on Barton Road that were told to deal with Jacobson or face eminent domain. It has been proven by Supervisor Chris Norby of Orange County and a slew of council members and educators from across southern California cities, that cities that do not have redevelopment agencies do far better than those that do. Grand Terrace is just one example how an uncaring council and a redevelopment agency and destroy a nice community. Thanks for nothing Mr. Megna.
Mr. Megna speaks to the use of eminent domain as a tool for governments to take land for roads, parks and bridges. The only bridge Mr.Megna built in Grand Terrace was the one from our city treasury to his bank account. Mr. Megna is or was the financial consultant to the City of Grand Terrace as well as the City of Fontana. The City of Fontana taxpayer now is the owner of a $2,480,955,957 redevelopment debt. That was as of 2003 and made them the second largest redevelopment indebted city in the state. I'm sure it has grown since.
Mr. Megna brought the Outdoor Adventure Center plan to the City of Grand Terrace. The City of Grand Terrace bought his idea, lock, stock and barrel. They bought land and went on his plan for over a year before making the citizens aware of this shopping center that would include a lake for testing boats and jet ski's. Mr. Megna's contract for this project, signed Oct 3, 2003 would pay him and his company $255.00 an hour for "consulting" on the Outdoor Adventure Center. The City Council did not vote approval of the OAC until Oct.9. This shows it was a done deal no matter what the citizens of Grand Terrace felt. So has it been with every project brought to Grand Terrace. The City Council disregards the outcry's of it's citizens and caters to the developers. All of Grand Terrace was declared blighted when they incorporated in 1978 and the whole of the city declared a redevelopment project. So no ones home is safe. If need be the council will create a zone for your project rather than a project for the zone. As shown by the recent Senior Housing Project vote by this council. The city, over the objections of many, plowed ahead on the Outdoor Adventure Center spending millions of dollars on what has now been deemed a failed project plan Mr. Megna authored. He was not alone. Our City planning director Mr. Knootz, Nolte and Associates, for whom Mr. Koontz works three days a week, and our City Manager Mr. Schwab were the driving force behind the project and should be some of those people Mr. Megna speaks about that should be held accountable. Don't hold your collective breaths.
The Grand Terrace Partners that now have taken over the project did a market and feasibility study on the Menga plan and found it to be not feasible nor marketable.
The home owners in this project area were threatened with the use of eminent domain by the city, as have been, and still are, the home owners in the Town Center project on Barton Road.
Mr. Megna's comments on the urban legend that some faceless bureaucrat is coming to take your home is not accurate. They have faces and we know who they are. They are the developers, that have latched on to the cash cow called Redevelopment. They are the City Councils and the staffs of City Halls and City Managers that place the well being of their developer friends over that of those that elected them. We can't allow ourselves to make that mistake again.
Mr. Megna stated that a public agency that is coming to take your home by eminent domain and pay you less than market value and give it to Wal-Mart is hysteria that passes for thoughtful discourse. That is not the case in Grand Terrace. They are giving it to Lowes and Stater Brothers. They used the ruse of a new public library to incorporate eminent domain into the Town Center project. We have a library now that is under funded and the new one will cost the taxpayers of Grand Terrace $7500 a month to rent. Even though our city manager said at a meeting no city funds would be used to pay the rent on the library,two days later in a P-E story he stated that the rent would come from the general fund or from the redevelopment agency. This rent will be paid to Jacobson Family Holding, the developer. The library will be placed in between a Lowes, those seeking day labor jobs and a super Staters.
Mr. Megna claims that the use of eminent domain rarely happens in the taking of private homes and when it does they pay 20 to 30% more than market value. At least in Grand Terrace a precedent has been set with the recent purchase of a home for $1,200,000 by the city. So if your home is to be taken you should receive the same price per square foot as they paid for that house and land. Look at the cases across America. The majority of them are not for "roads, bridges and public parks". The cases that are brought to court and public attention are the taking of homes for developers like Mr Megna. They are for shopping centers, high rise condos and commercial ventures. It is the taking of private homes to enrichen the developer, as is the case in Grand Terrace and across this nation. Any revenue generated by the use of redevelopment agency funds for a project does not go back to the general fund of the city. It goes to the redevelopment agency for more redevelopment. This means that tax money that should go for schools, road repair, law enforcement and the services that taxes are paid for, go into the pockets of developers. Redevelopment agencies are the only branch of government that can issue bonds without voter approval. Again is the case here in Grand Terrace.
Again Mr. Megna speaks to public figures that are accountable and understand the seriousness of eminent domain. So far in Grand Terrace the only public figure who understands this seriousness is Planning Commissioner Bidney, who, when asking Mr. Megna if eminent domain was going to be used to displace people for his Outdoor Adventure Center had to resort to pounding on the dias and raising his voice to get a straight answer from Mr. Megna. The answer was yes. Mr. Bidney was the only one who voted against the project with the statement "that if it were his home that was to be taken he would be very concerned".
Nowhere in Mr. Megna's article does he show concern for the person who may loose what may have been their life long home to the greed of developers or "consultants" He blathers on about development and needing "real leadership" to further his goals.I might add that since Mr. Megna's Outdoor Adventure Center has been shown to be folly and he has made his thousands and thousands of dollars off the taxpayers of Grand Terrace, no one has seen hide nor hair of him. It appears he sold his project, made his money, and left for greener pastures. If you visit his website, Empire Development Solutions, see if you can find any of these public roads, bridges and parks he speaks about. It all looks like commercial development he is involved in.
So when Mr. Megna says he only knows of one home in 35 years that was to be taken by eminent domain by redevelopment may I remind him of the several his project in Grand Terrace were going to take and the ones on Barton Road that were told to deal with Jacobson or face eminent domain. It has been proven by Supervisor Chris Norby of Orange County and a slew of council members and educators from across southern California cities, that cities that do not have redevelopment agencies do far better than those that do. Grand Terrace is just one example how an uncaring council and a redevelopment agency and destroy a nice community. Thanks for nothing Mr. Megna.
After the Last Planning Meeting
Mr.Koontz (a City Employee, and a Person Employeed by a Company Contracted to do work for the City),told the planners after the "Official Meeting":
The houses on Barton would be gone in 2 weeks, not burned, bulldowzed.
The sheriff wants them gone ASAP, because of the gang activity there.
(shouldn't that be Jacobsen's problem to solve?)
Miguel's plans are almost through plan check & and they were "chomping at the bit" to get started. (what lot split? approvals tied to no address or parcel #'s or lot).
Some progress made on the plans/negotiations for the office building next to city hall.
The OAC had resolved the problems with the 215 interchange, with approvals the CRA is in the final negotiations for the DDA with the developer now. Sandbag had offered to be the lead agency for the OAC project and Caltrans had offered to do the road reports within 6 months
NO mention of the lawsuit or settlement talks.
half truths from staff to planners--what's new?
Between hairbenders and Jo Stringfield, the city owns 2 lots and Jacobsen 3 lots. To the best of anyones knowledge, Miguels owns the long narrow parcel next to hairbenders not the lot in front of The Terrace Retirement Facility.
The track map or lot split come through council or planning, unless
that too was done "in the back room" to give Miguel's lot a long Barton frontage.
Jacobsen is in escrow to buy Hairbenders too, the rest of the people don't want to sell, and are being pressured by the City or the Redevelopment Agency or their "Hand Picked Selected Developers".
This makes Grandpa ask:
Is it true that Miguel's also gets veto power on any other mexican restaurant on any of the 16 acres? Is that not restraint of trade? What about residents who have owned for years, can they build too?
Maybe the demo is a way for the city to subsidize Jacobsen, unless he is paying for the demo after providing the years of blight, and gang hang outs?
Where will the off ramp be placed, how much of GT Elementary, the Texico Station, and all the property around the freeway be changed? Show us the REAL PLANS... before the EIR is filed.. how about it?
The houses on Barton would be gone in 2 weeks, not burned, bulldowzed.
The sheriff wants them gone ASAP, because of the gang activity there.
(shouldn't that be Jacobsen's problem to solve?)
Miguel's plans are almost through plan check & and they were "chomping at the bit" to get started. (what lot split? approvals tied to no address or parcel #'s or lot).
Some progress made on the plans/negotiations for the office building next to city hall.
The OAC had resolved the problems with the 215 interchange, with approvals the CRA is in the final negotiations for the DDA with the developer now. Sandbag had offered to be the lead agency for the OAC project and Caltrans had offered to do the road reports within 6 months
NO mention of the lawsuit or settlement talks.
half truths from staff to planners--what's new?
Between hairbenders and Jo Stringfield, the city owns 2 lots and Jacobsen 3 lots. To the best of anyones knowledge, Miguels owns the long narrow parcel next to hairbenders not the lot in front of The Terrace Retirement Facility.
The track map or lot split come through council or planning, unless
that too was done "in the back room" to give Miguel's lot a long Barton frontage.
Jacobsen is in escrow to buy Hairbenders too, the rest of the people don't want to sell, and are being pressured by the City or the Redevelopment Agency or their "Hand Picked Selected Developers".
This makes Grandpa ask:
Is it true that Miguel's also gets veto power on any other mexican restaurant on any of the 16 acres? Is that not restraint of trade? What about residents who have owned for years, can they build too?
Maybe the demo is a way for the city to subsidize Jacobsen, unless he is paying for the demo after providing the years of blight, and gang hang outs?
Where will the off ramp be placed, how much of GT Elementary, the Texico Station, and all the property around the freeway be changed? Show us the REAL PLANS... before the EIR is filed.. how about it?
New Reader's Real Concerns and My Reply
From the Email Inbox:
Grandpa..
its me wrote:
I am a little hesitant to write this, as it means I am giving you my email address - but I don't know who you are. So I will leave this as vague, as you are with your reading public. One can never be too careful on the internet.
I have been reading your site and find it very informative and moving. I look forward to reading more as it certainly presents a different viewpoint. I feel compelled to write nontheless.
You posted on your site, names of sexual offenders in our city. A few weeks ago, a friend of mine discovered one, on their street less than a block from mine. You have him listed Dana Quintana - but he no longer lives on Deberry he is now on McClarren street. Why isn't this posted on the Megan's Law site? There are two daycares on that street, and Grand Terrace Elementary??!! Why doesn't the community get informed??? This is scary.
Thanks for your time.
GRANDPATERRACE's Reply to the Emailer:
First of all, "I" didn't post this information about sex offenders. There are many folks who post to the blog. You are welcome to become a poster if you like. I share your concern. The correct action for you to take is to report your information to the Sheriff's Department, the CHP (being they are the State and perhaps even the FBI) as the issue of not registering is a State and perhaps as Federal Crime, if the case was tried in a Federal Court.
As I have no first hand knowledge about this information you are providing, It is your civic responsibility to advance this information.
Regarding your email. I don't share email addresses or identities unless the person says it is OK to do so. There has been sufficient intimidation of citizens and business owners in this town. The Blog is concerned with the operations of city hall and the effectiveness of schools, and the real arrests and criminal activity in the city.
Development concerns are posted at the request of others who provide documents and information. Yes, I do the bulk of the posting, but I am only the one who seems to know how to post a picture and so forth.
I as an individual am not important. My Anonymity insures freedom.
Welcome to the readership.
Grandpa..
its me wrote:
I am a little hesitant to write this, as it means I am giving you my email address - but I don't know who you are. So I will leave this as vague, as you are with your reading public. One can never be too careful on the internet.
I have been reading your site and find it very informative and moving. I look forward to reading more as it certainly presents a different viewpoint. I feel compelled to write nontheless.
You posted on your site, names of sexual offenders in our city. A few weeks ago, a friend of mine discovered one, on their street less than a block from mine. You have him listed Dana Quintana - but he no longer lives on Deberry he is now on McClarren street. Why isn't this posted on the Megan's Law site? There are two daycares on that street, and Grand Terrace Elementary??!! Why doesn't the community get informed??? This is scary.
Thanks for your time.
GRANDPATERRACE's Reply to the Emailer:
First of all, "I" didn't post this information about sex offenders. There are many folks who post to the blog. You are welcome to become a poster if you like. I share your concern. The correct action for you to take is to report your information to the Sheriff's Department, the CHP (being they are the State and perhaps even the FBI) as the issue of not registering is a State and perhaps as Federal Crime, if the case was tried in a Federal Court.
As I have no first hand knowledge about this information you are providing, It is your civic responsibility to advance this information.
Regarding your email. I don't share email addresses or identities unless the person says it is OK to do so. There has been sufficient intimidation of citizens and business owners in this town. The Blog is concerned with the operations of city hall and the effectiveness of schools, and the real arrests and criminal activity in the city.
Development concerns are posted at the request of others who provide documents and information. Yes, I do the bulk of the posting, but I am only the one who seems to know how to post a picture and so forth.
I as an individual am not important. My Anonymity insures freedom.
Welcome to the readership.
Town Center Revision Show Backroom Changes?
The newest Town Center Drawings A-16 which has been made available to business owners in town shows several things of interest.
There is Miguele's, back in front of The Terrace, now with the traffic pattern adjusted so it does not exit onto Canal Street/or Canal Driveway. However, look how the traffic low has changed around The Terrace.
Significant Public concern was raised about several issues of the placement of Migueles and the fact that Drive Threw restaurants have been prohibited in the past. Will the City change its no drive threw or curb service for all restaurants?
Where is the Library? Did the City figure out that it is a COUNTY Library and not a CITY LIBRARY? Did they find out the City can't obligate the COUNTY for a hefty rental agreement? What is the situation? Do you think the Citizens should know?
Who wants a Lowes and the Day Workers it will attract across from the Elementary School? Noise, traffic, and who know who will be lurking around? Where are the public restrooms for the Day Workers? Or will they be using the bushes and trees in the parking lot to relieve themselves?
Will the sale of alcohol at Stater Brothers and the location of Day Workers in the proximity of GT Elementary and the residents of The Terrace be a great social advance for the City?
Has the forced sale of homes and small family farms provided a place for vandals, drugs, and crime?
Will the city force private citizens off their property for the Private Investors of Jacobsen, Lowes, Jack Brown, and Migueles?
What is the EIR on the Town Center Site. Will the Impact of Lowes, Drive Threw restaurant, Larger Stater's "Improve" our Environment?
Think about it...
I know I'll never do business with any one located in the new developments.
I know that the "New Savon" is being sold.. To who knows, and that Savon is in Financial Trouble.
I know that the single land owner in this town has NO RIGHTS. So I hope the groups around town keep united in their efforts to improve GT in ways that are real improvements not just quick cash for the Planning Department, or the Redevelopment Agency. The added income from sales taxes is offset by the need for more law enforcement. There will not be a real gain to the city, just more noise, crime, cars, and trash from take out food.
HILKEY and the LAW:
Is Council Member Herman Hilkey someone we want giving us advice about attorney fees?
Hilkey filed suite against the school district regarding his termination.
Is this helping Education, Teachers or Students?
May 2, 2004 Daily Bulletin
'Rotten' Firing Sparks Lawsuit
Source: Daily Bulletin
URL: http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203~~
FONTANA - A former school district director has filed a lawsuit against the district school board claiming the board acted wrongly when it fired him in December. The suit says the Fontana Unified School District board failed to accurately follow the recommendations of its hearing officer when it terminated Herman Hilkey, the district's former director of facilities planning and special projects. The suit claims the hearing officer, Michael Prihar, only advised Hilkey be demoted, not terminated. ......
Hilkey filed suite against the school district regarding his termination.
Is this helping Education, Teachers or Students?
May 2, 2004 Daily Bulletin
'Rotten' Firing Sparks Lawsuit
Source: Daily Bulletin
URL: http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203~~
FONTANA - A former school district director has filed a lawsuit against the district school board claiming the board acted wrongly when it fired him in December. The suit says the Fontana Unified School District board failed to accurately follow the recommendations of its hearing officer when it terminated Herman Hilkey, the district's former director of facilities planning and special projects. The suit claims the hearing officer, Michael Prihar, only advised Hilkey be demoted, not terminated. ......
Perhaps Council Member Herman Hilkey only thinks a law suite should be pursued if the Citizens of Grand Terrace will benefit financially by bringing suite against the City. No the purpose of this suit is so that Citizens can know of and or stop the shenanigans going on at City Hall, or the City Redevelopment Agency or what ever strange organization currently tramping on the citizens rights in this city.
Yes, OAC and Town Center and even the Senior Center are still suspect. There is no real current plan, no real current city plan and yet contractors and developers have been selected without competitive bids, and with real open government processes having taken place. Back room deals, back peddling, and all have debased the trust in our local government to a point that legal action is the only action a citizen or citizens have to voice their concerns, and have them heard. Legal action is the only action the city hears. So go forth and file suit.
Don't let Hilkey the hypocrite suggest the Suit against the City is unfounded. Look at the recent events, there is just cause to raise question and file suit on nearly every city and redevelopment action taken by this city. It isn't about Ducks Hilkey.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Why GT Should Go to Court:
If the City or the Redevelopment Agency Settles the case pending against the City, the Citizens will never hear all the detail of the case. The citizens will get a bill and no product.
City Council Member Mr. Hilkey suggests it is a big waste of money. It won't go to protect one duck, or the environment, it will just go to pay lawyers.
Council Member Hilkey's opinion is odd. Consider the situation of the Manhole Builder's proposed development. There is credible evidence that the City Manager's hand picked employees, and subcontractors working in the City's Planning Department and for the City, and the Redevelopment Agency were engaged in at minimum malfeasance, if not out right fraud.
The Citizens should know the caliber of the employees being paid with our tax dollars, from Clerk to City Manager. Is is an error to send a copy of a gas stations environmental documents as being the filing for a cement manufacturing facility? Is it an error to fail to disclose to the Planning Commission the true nature of the public facilities such as roads, and neighborhoods impacted by a project? Is it an error by the planning department to not require full disclosure of the developer of the health risks of their operations, and the types of equipment being installed, and vehicle use on residencial roads? Error, Incompetence, Malfeasance... The citizens need to evaluate the whole situation of OAC as well as the Manhole Builders.
Not because either development will go as planed. No the value in this investigation and case going forward is the evaluation of the operations of the City. Evaluation of the Value of the Management Provided by the City Manager, and those who are in the loop of the decision making processes in the City.
This is the value of the law suit filed against the OAC.
Yes the OAC has changed. To what do we really know. Where will the roads be widened, off ramps changed. Will businesses be moved, will our historical buildings be removed? Why install more speed bumps, stop signs and signals and maintain a 40 mph speed limit through town? Why to increase the air pollution caused by cars speeding up between stops? We know a slow and steady speed creates less pollution. Lets continue to have a situation where LEV's aren't feasible in our town with its 40 mph cross roads fronting our shopping and cross sectioning our city.
Yes, I want the law suit to go forward. If the City Settles the suit behind closed doors they may force a non disclosure agreement so we pay for the legal fees, and don't get public disclosure of the case evidence. That friends would be wrong, simply wrong.
City Council Member Mr. Hilkey suggests it is a big waste of money. It won't go to protect one duck, or the environment, it will just go to pay lawyers.
Council Member Hilkey's opinion is odd. Consider the situation of the Manhole Builder's proposed development. There is credible evidence that the City Manager's hand picked employees, and subcontractors working in the City's Planning Department and for the City, and the Redevelopment Agency were engaged in at minimum malfeasance, if not out right fraud.
The Citizens should know the caliber of the employees being paid with our tax dollars, from Clerk to City Manager. Is is an error to send a copy of a gas stations environmental documents as being the filing for a cement manufacturing facility? Is it an error to fail to disclose to the Planning Commission the true nature of the public facilities such as roads, and neighborhoods impacted by a project? Is it an error by the planning department to not require full disclosure of the developer of the health risks of their operations, and the types of equipment being installed, and vehicle use on residencial roads? Error, Incompetence, Malfeasance... The citizens need to evaluate the whole situation of OAC as well as the Manhole Builders.
Not because either development will go as planed. No the value in this investigation and case going forward is the evaluation of the operations of the City. Evaluation of the Value of the Management Provided by the City Manager, and those who are in the loop of the decision making processes in the City.
This is the value of the law suit filed against the OAC.
Yes the OAC has changed. To what do we really know. Where will the roads be widened, off ramps changed. Will businesses be moved, will our historical buildings be removed? Why install more speed bumps, stop signs and signals and maintain a 40 mph speed limit through town? Why to increase the air pollution caused by cars speeding up between stops? We know a slow and steady speed creates less pollution. Lets continue to have a situation where LEV's aren't feasible in our town with its 40 mph cross roads fronting our shopping and cross sectioning our city.
Yes, I want the law suit to go forward. If the City Settles the suit behind closed doors they may force a non disclosure agreement so we pay for the legal fees, and don't get public disclosure of the case evidence. That friends would be wrong, simply wrong.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Posts Requested by the City
The 10th annual Reader's Choice awards from the Press Enterprise came out in last Sunday's paper. Events, restaurants, and entertainment is rated by the readers of the paper. The Grand Terrace Days festival and parade was listed as the second favorite event in the County--with Route 66 being #3 and the Yucapia Iris Festival rated #1.
Community Services would like to thank the GT Days Committee, the volunteers, and our sponsors that put the true spirit of community in this festival.
Mark your calendars for GT Days 2006, Saturday, June 3rd. The next GT Days Committee meeting is Wednesday, December 7th at 2 p.m. in City Hall. The public is always invited to attend. For more information, please call Community Services at 430-2201.
GTTV Channel 3 Adelphia Cable is now showing the recent Halloween Haunt event and the Country Fair. See the hundreds of children that dressed up---some with their parents--to enjoy the Haunt event. Over 1,000 pounds of quality candy was given away that evening along with hundreds of dollars in prizes.
Grand Terrace residents won every prize in the raffle with one exception going to a child from Highgrove.
Enhancements are being considered by the committee for next year that would limit any politcal messaging and giving community groups the ability to reserve key locations in the Haunt.
GTTV viewing times:
Channel 3 --every day with the exception of Thursdays
4 p.m.--- The Halloween Haunt
4:15 p.m. ---The Country Fair
7 p.m.--The Halloween Haunt
7:15 p.m.--- The Country Fair
Upcoming new GTTV shows for December include the Holiday Lights review and the Annual City Birthday Celebration.
Community Services would like to thank the GT Days Committee, the volunteers, and our sponsors that put the true spirit of community in this festival.
Mark your calendars for GT Days 2006, Saturday, June 3rd. The next GT Days Committee meeting is Wednesday, December 7th at 2 p.m. in City Hall. The public is always invited to attend. For more information, please call Community Services at 430-2201.
GTTV Channel 3 Adelphia Cable is now showing the recent Halloween Haunt event and the Country Fair. See the hundreds of children that dressed up---some with their parents--to enjoy the Haunt event. Over 1,000 pounds of quality candy was given away that evening along with hundreds of dollars in prizes.
Grand Terrace residents won every prize in the raffle with one exception going to a child from Highgrove.
Enhancements are being considered by the committee for next year that would limit any politcal messaging and giving community groups the ability to reserve key locations in the Haunt.
GTTV viewing times:
Channel 3 --every day with the exception of Thursdays
4 p.m.--- The Halloween Haunt
4:15 p.m. ---The Country Fair
7 p.m.--The Halloween Haunt
7:15 p.m.--- The Country Fair
Upcoming new GTTV shows for December include the Holiday Lights review and the Annual City Birthday Celebration.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Pay for Law Suit or Not Pay?
Hmmm,
Do we think there was a cause of action against the city's original OAC Environmental Impact Study?
Is there any reason to believe this would happen?
Lets review. This same city approved Manhole Builder's environmental Impact Statement.
Yes, we should pay the attorney fees of the citizen who was courageous enough to file the law suite for the behalf of the citizens of our city, and surrounding communities.
Why, well let's begin with the fact that WE don't demand better service and accountability for the people hired by our city. This included the people in the Planning Department, and the City Manager who were all active in cooking up this OAC DEAL on a no bid development plan with a hand picked developer. Let's not mention all the other negatives which have in time come to light with regards to the original OAC proposal.
Yes, we should pay the fees, and we should be able to have all the evidence of the complaint in the public view. Those at fault for creating this obligation should be either jailed, or fired. The cost should come from Mr. Schwab's Pay as he is in charge of City Hall, and he selected the people involved in this situation.
Do we think there was a cause of action against the city's original OAC Environmental Impact Study?
Is there any reason to believe this would happen?
Lets review. This same city approved Manhole Builder's environmental Impact Statement.
Yes, we should pay the attorney fees of the citizen who was courageous enough to file the law suite for the behalf of the citizens of our city, and surrounding communities.
Why, well let's begin with the fact that WE don't demand better service and accountability for the people hired by our city. This included the people in the Planning Department, and the City Manager who were all active in cooking up this OAC DEAL on a no bid development plan with a hand picked developer. Let's not mention all the other negatives which have in time come to light with regards to the original OAC proposal.
Yes, we should pay the fees, and we should be able to have all the evidence of the complaint in the public view. Those at fault for creating this obligation should be either jailed, or fired. The cost should come from Mr. Schwab's Pay as he is in charge of City Hall, and he selected the people involved in this situation.
Arrests Continue:
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301427
DATE: 11/25/2005 TIME: 1905
ARREST DATE: 11/25/2005 TIME: 1810
LOC: 12073 PRESTON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: GABBARD FIRST: GRANT MIDDLE: NIEL
DOB: 04/02/1960 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 5 10 WT: 160 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00
BP4140 MISD SUPP A $30,000.00
HS11364(A) MISD SUPP A
PC1320(A) MISD SUPP APC853.7 MISD SUPP A
HS11550 MISD SUPP B $35,000.00
PC1320(A) MISD SUPP BPC853.7 MISD SUPP B
VC14601.1(A) MISD SUPP C $40,000.00
VC40508(A) MISD SUPP C
_____________________________________
______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301281
DATE: 11/22/2005 TIME: 2233
ARREST DATE: 11/22/2005 TIME: 1810
LOC: 22491 DE BERRY ST AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/23/2005 TIME: 0208 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: MURATORE FIRST: BRANDON MIDDLE: JOEL MICHA DOB: 06/03/1986 SEX: M RACE: W
HT: 5 09 WT: 140 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: JANITORCHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC602 MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL CITE-REL
PC594.2(A) MISD 05WM09480 $7,500.00
PC602(L)(1) MISD 05WM09480
pc594.2. (a) Every person who possesses a masonry or glass drill bit, a carbide drill bit, a glass cutter, a grinding stone, an awl, achisel, a carbide scribe, an aerosol paint container, a felt tipmarker, or any other marking substance with the intent to commit vandalism or graffiti, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
pc602(l) Entering any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands without the written permission of the owner of the land, the owner's agent or of the person in lawful possession, and (1) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon being requested by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession to leave the lands, or (2) Tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard,or notice forbidding trespass or hunting on the lands, or
____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301102
DATE: 11/20/2005 TIME: 0026
ARREST DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 2130
LOC: MICHIGAN/BARTON RD AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: PADILLA FIRST: ERIC MIDDLE: STEVEN
DOB: 11/02/1972 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 07 WT: 170 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION:
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC529 FEL ORIGINAL $15,000.00
PC3056 FEL P41958 NO BAIL
____________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301034
DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0126
ARREST DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0001
LOC: MT VERNON/BRITTON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0624
FACILITY:
NAME: LAST: CZECH FIRST: EDWARD MIDDLE: FRANK DOB: 08/06/1970 SEX: M RACE: W
HT: 6 01 WT: 188 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11364 MISD ORIGINAL $30,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
PC1320(A) MISD ORIGINAL
PC853.7 MISD ORIGINAL
____________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511342946
DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0126
ARREST DATE: 11/18/2005 TIME: 2245
LOC: BARTON RD/MICHIGAN AVE
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: DUNLAP FIRST: JAMES MIDDLE: THEODORE
DOB: 04/23/1956 SEX: M RACE: W
HT: 5 11 WT: 190 HAIR: BLN EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: MECHANICAL SUP
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
VC23152(A) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL
VC23152(B) MISD ORIGINAL
________________________________________________________
___________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300818
DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1154
ARREST DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1050 LOC: MCCLLAREN/VIVENDA AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/16/2005 TIME: 2130 FACILITY:
NAME: LAST: FLORES FIRST: LOUIE MIDDLE: RAMIRO
DOB: 08/12/1981 SEX: M RACE: H
HT: 5 07 WT: 150 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
HS11378 FEL SUPP A $15,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
__________________________________________________
_________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300814
DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 0146
ARREST DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 0045
LOC: SANBAR SB AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: HERNANDEZ FIRST: EDGAR MIDDLE:
DOB: 09/30/1975 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 06 WT: 180 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: COOK
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC3056 FEL ORIGINAL NO BAIL
___________________________________________
__________
Charge Detail
PC3056. Prisoners on parole shall remain under the legal custody of the department and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the inclosure of the prison.
______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300746
DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0613
ARREST DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0500
LOC: MAIN ST/MT VERNON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: GARCIA FIRST: CARLOS MIDDLE:
DOB: 09/09/1971 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 08 WT: 180 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: FRAMING
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC459 FEL ORIGINAL $30,000.00
PC496(A) FEL ORIGINAL
Charge Detail
PC459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement,shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, out house or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle,trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft asdefined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or anyunderground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petitlarceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.
PC496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling ,or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year. However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that this action would be in the interests of justice, the district attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
__________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300818
DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1154
ARREST DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1050 LOC: MCCLLAREN/VIVENDA
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: FLORES FIRST: LOUIE MIDDLE: RAMIRO
DOB: 08/12/1981 SEX: M RACE: H
HT: 5 07 WT: 150 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00
_________________________________________________________
Charge Detail
HS11377. (a) Except as authorized by law and as otherwise provided insubdivision (b) or Section 11375, or in Article 7 (commencing with Section 4211) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, every person who possesses any controlled substance which is (1) classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, and which is not a narcotic drug, (2) specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11054, except paragraphs (13), (14), (15), and (20) of subdivision (d), (3) specified in paragraph (11) of subdivision (c) of Section 11056, (4) specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, or (5) specified in subdivision (d), (e), or (f) of Section 11055, unless upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian, licensed to practice in this state, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year or in the state prison.
__________________________________________________
_________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300745
DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0601
ARREST DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0500
LOC: MAIN ST/MT VERNON GR. TER
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1954 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: TOWNSEND FIRST: SAVATORE MIDDLE: RICHARD
DOB: 10/13/1976 SEX: M RACE: H HT: 5 09 WT: 160 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: HAZ OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC459 FEL ORIGINAL $25,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
PC496(A) FEL ORIGINAL
__________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511341954
DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0105
ARREST DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0015
LOC: BARSTON ROAD E/OF CANAL
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 1216 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: JARRETT FIRST: ZACHARY MIDDLE: RYAN
DOB: 07/15/1978 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 5 09 WT: 192 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: AIR TRAFFIC CNT
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC647(F) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL CITE-REL
__________________________
Charge Detail
PC647(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructsor prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.
Let's HOPE he wasn't going to WORK by DRIVING HIMSELF
______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300727
DATE: 11/12/2005 TIME: 2338
ARREST DATE: 11/12/2005 TIME: 2135
LOC: 2211 NEWPORT AVE #43 AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: OLIVARES-GONZALE FIRST: RAMIRO MIDDLE:
DOB: 03/04/1987 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 6 01 WT: 195 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION:
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC12035(B)(1) FEL ORIGINAL $15,000.00
PC12090 FEL ORIGINAL
__________________________________________
Charge Detail
PC12036(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree" if he or she keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and there by causes death or great bodily injury to himself, herself, or any other person.
PC12090. Any person who changes, alters, removes or obliterates the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice on any pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, without first having secured written permission from the department to make such change, alteration or removal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.
_______________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511341672
DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0103
ARREST DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0005
LOC: 22335 FRANKLIN ST AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 1150 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: MARQUEZ FIRST: HENRY MIDDLE: JOSEPH
DOB: 01/31/1951 SEX: M RACE: H HT: 6 00 WT: 250 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: DRIVER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC647(F) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL CITE-REL
__________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511341718
DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0828
ARREST DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0723 LOC: BARTON / CANAL AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 1721 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: ROBERTUS FIRST: NICHOLAS MIDDLE: BELDON
DOB: 07/10/1964 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 6 02 WT: 225 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BLU
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11364 MISD ORIGINAL $45,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
PC1320(A) MISD ORIGINAL
______________________________________________
Charge Detail
HS11364. (a) It is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking (1) a controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055, or (2) a controlled substance which is a narcoticdrug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.
PC1320. (a) Every person who is charged with or convicted of the commission of a misdemeanor who is released from custody on his or her own recognizance and who in order to evade the process of the court willfully fails to appear as required, is guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall be presumed that a defendant who willfully fails to appear within 14 days of the date assigned for his or her appearance intended to evade the process of the court.
______________________________
PC
DATE: 11/25/2005 TIME: 1905
ARREST DATE: 11/25/2005 TIME: 1810
LOC: 12073 PRESTON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: GABBARD FIRST: GRANT MIDDLE: NIEL
DOB: 04/02/1960 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 5 10 WT: 160 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00
BP4140 MISD SUPP A $30,000.00
HS11364(A) MISD SUPP A
PC1320(A) MISD SUPP APC853.7 MISD SUPP A
HS11550 MISD SUPP B $35,000.00
PC1320(A) MISD SUPP BPC853.7 MISD SUPP B
VC14601.1(A) MISD SUPP C $40,000.00
VC40508(A) MISD SUPP C
_____________________________________
______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301281
DATE: 11/22/2005 TIME: 2233
ARREST DATE: 11/22/2005 TIME: 1810
LOC: 22491 DE BERRY ST AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/23/2005 TIME: 0208 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: MURATORE FIRST: BRANDON MIDDLE: JOEL MICHA DOB: 06/03/1986 SEX: M RACE: W
HT: 5 09 WT: 140 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: JANITORCHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC602 MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL CITE-REL
PC594.2(A) MISD 05WM09480 $7,500.00
PC602(L)(1) MISD 05WM09480
pc594.2. (a) Every person who possesses a masonry or glass drill bit, a carbide drill bit, a glass cutter, a grinding stone, an awl, achisel, a carbide scribe, an aerosol paint container, a felt tipmarker, or any other marking substance with the intent to commit vandalism or graffiti, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
pc602(l) Entering any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands without the written permission of the owner of the land, the owner's agent or of the person in lawful possession, and (1) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon being requested by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession to leave the lands, or (2) Tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard,or notice forbidding trespass or hunting on the lands, or
____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301102
DATE: 11/20/2005 TIME: 0026
ARREST DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 2130
LOC: MICHIGAN/BARTON RD AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: PADILLA FIRST: ERIC MIDDLE: STEVEN
DOB: 11/02/1972 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 07 WT: 170 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION:
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC529 FEL ORIGINAL $15,000.00
PC3056 FEL P41958 NO BAIL
____________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511301034
DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0126
ARREST DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0001
LOC: MT VERNON/BRITTON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0624
FACILITY:
NAME: LAST: CZECH FIRST: EDWARD MIDDLE: FRANK DOB: 08/06/1970 SEX: M RACE: W
HT: 6 01 WT: 188 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11364 MISD ORIGINAL $30,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
PC1320(A) MISD ORIGINAL
PC853.7 MISD ORIGINAL
____________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511342946
DATE: 11/19/2005 TIME: 0126
ARREST DATE: 11/18/2005 TIME: 2245
LOC: BARTON RD/MICHIGAN AVE
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: DUNLAP FIRST: JAMES MIDDLE: THEODORE
DOB: 04/23/1956 SEX: M RACE: W
HT: 5 11 WT: 190 HAIR: BLN EYE COLOR: HAZ
OCCUPATION: MECHANICAL SUP
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
VC23152(A) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL
VC23152(B) MISD ORIGINAL
________________________________________________________
___________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300818
DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1154
ARREST DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1050 LOC: MCCLLAREN/VIVENDA AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/16/2005 TIME: 2130 FACILITY:
NAME: LAST: FLORES FIRST: LOUIE MIDDLE: RAMIRO
DOB: 08/12/1981 SEX: M RACE: H
HT: 5 07 WT: 150 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
HS11378 FEL SUPP A $15,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
__________________________________________________
_________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300814
DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 0146
ARREST DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 0045
LOC: SANBAR SB AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: HERNANDEZ FIRST: EDGAR MIDDLE:
DOB: 09/30/1975 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 06 WT: 180 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: COOK
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC3056 FEL ORIGINAL NO BAIL
___________________________________________
__________
Charge Detail
PC3056. Prisoners on parole shall remain under the legal custody of the department and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the inclosure of the prison.
______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300746
DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0613
ARREST DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0500
LOC: MAIN ST/MT VERNON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: GARCIA FIRST: CARLOS MIDDLE:
DOB: 09/09/1971 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 08 WT: 180 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: FRAMING
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC459 FEL ORIGINAL $30,000.00
PC496(A) FEL ORIGINAL
Charge Detail
PC459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement,shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, out house or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle,trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft asdefined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or anyunderground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petitlarceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.
PC496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling ,or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year. However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that this action would be in the interests of justice, the district attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
__________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300818
DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1154
ARREST DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1050 LOC: MCCLLAREN/VIVENDA
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: FLORES FIRST: LOUIE MIDDLE: RAMIRO
DOB: 08/12/1981 SEX: M RACE: H
HT: 5 07 WT: 150 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00
_________________________________________________________
Charge Detail
HS11377. (a) Except as authorized by law and as otherwise provided insubdivision (b) or Section 11375, or in Article 7 (commencing with Section 4211) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, every person who possesses any controlled substance which is (1) classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, and which is not a narcotic drug, (2) specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11054, except paragraphs (13), (14), (15), and (20) of subdivision (d), (3) specified in paragraph (11) of subdivision (c) of Section 11056, (4) specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, or (5) specified in subdivision (d), (e), or (f) of Section 11055, unless upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian, licensed to practice in this state, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year or in the state prison.
__________________________________________________
_________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300745
DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0601
ARREST DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0500
LOC: MAIN ST/MT VERNON GR. TER
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/15/2005 TIME: 1954 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: TOWNSEND FIRST: SAVATORE MIDDLE: RICHARD
DOB: 10/13/1976 SEX: M RACE: H HT: 5 09 WT: 160 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: HAZ OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC459 FEL ORIGINAL $25,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
PC496(A) FEL ORIGINAL
__________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511341954
DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0105
ARREST DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 0015
LOC: BARSTON ROAD E/OF CANAL
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/13/2005 TIME: 1216 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: JARRETT FIRST: ZACHARY MIDDLE: RYAN
DOB: 07/15/1978 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 5 09 WT: 192 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: AIR TRAFFIC CNT
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC647(F) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL CITE-REL
__________________________
Charge Detail
PC647(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructsor prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.
Let's HOPE he wasn't going to WORK by DRIVING HIMSELF
______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300727
DATE: 11/12/2005 TIME: 2338
ARREST DATE: 11/12/2005 TIME: 2135
LOC: 2211 NEWPORT AVE #43 AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: OLIVARES-GONZALE FIRST: RAMIRO MIDDLE:
DOB: 03/04/1987 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 6 01 WT: 195 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION:
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC12035(B)(1) FEL ORIGINAL $15,000.00
PC12090 FEL ORIGINAL
__________________________________________
Charge Detail
PC12036(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree" if he or she keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and there by causes death or great bodily injury to himself, herself, or any other person.
PC12090. Any person who changes, alters, removes or obliterates the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice on any pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, without first having secured written permission from the department to make such change, alteration or removal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.
_______________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511341672
DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0103
ARREST DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0005
LOC: 22335 FRANKLIN ST AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 1150 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: MARQUEZ FIRST: HENRY MIDDLE: JOSEPH
DOB: 01/31/1951 SEX: M RACE: H HT: 6 00 WT: 250 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: DRIVER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC647(F) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL CITE-REL
__________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511341718
DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0828
ARREST DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 0723 LOC: BARTON / CANAL AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/11/2005 TIME: 1721 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: ROBERTUS FIRST: NICHOLAS MIDDLE: BELDON
DOB: 07/10/1964 SEX: M
RACE: W HT: 6 02 WT: 225 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BLU
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11364 MISD ORIGINAL $45,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
PC1320(A) MISD ORIGINAL
______________________________________________
Charge Detail
HS11364. (a) It is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking (1) a controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055, or (2) a controlled substance which is a narcoticdrug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.
PC1320. (a) Every person who is charged with or convicted of the commission of a misdemeanor who is released from custody on his or her own recognizance and who in order to evade the process of the court willfully fails to appear as required, is guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall be presumed that a defendant who willfully fails to appear within 14 days of the date assigned for his or her appearance intended to evade the process of the court.
______________________________
PC
Friday, November 11, 2005
Grand Terrace Gang: To See or Not To See
Frome the Email Inbox:
So let me see if I understand this correctly. The good Lt. from the Sheriff's Office says we don't have a gang here, but we do have a street gang. Not like in L.A. These people only steal cars, break into them, one of which was my neighbors and another neighbor caught them "gang tagging: his curb with spray paint. We don't have drive-by shooting, that's nice. Do all gangs start out with a drive-by shooting or do they work their way up.?
One person after the council meeting reported that they had kicked in their neighbors front door. The Sheriff had to be called today because the "not a gang but is a gang" entered a neighbor's back yard. The deputy was carrying mug shots of the two leaders that are brothers.
I feel so much better that we don't have a gang of twenty to twenty-five that range from 12 years old to 25 years old. I don't know, but it sure sounds like a gang to me and from what I've seen it sure looks like a gang to me.
If they know they are entering the houses on Barton and using them to hide out or hang out, don't bulldoze them. At least you know where they are. If you bulldoze them then they will spread out to the neighborhoods. Try to catch them in the houses and arrest them and drag the parents into court.
This is a problem in Grand Terrace we can't afford because of a lack of deputies. The council thinks it is more important to give money to developers than to police protection. It needs to be nipped in the bud either by the police or by citizen street patrols. Where ever they show up the men of the neighborhood should come together. Bring flashlights, cell phones and video cameras. Do not confront them, but let them know they are being watched by a group of adult men and their actions are being documented and we are not going to tolerate this behavior on our streets. If they move to another street, follow them. Maybe we can make them move up into Honey Hills and make it the council's problem to solve when it's in their front yard. Make it uncomfortable for them in Grand Terrace before they make it uncomfortable in Grand Terrace for you.
So let me see if I understand this correctly. The good Lt. from the Sheriff's Office says we don't have a gang here, but we do have a street gang. Not like in L.A. These people only steal cars, break into them, one of which was my neighbors and another neighbor caught them "gang tagging: his curb with spray paint. We don't have drive-by shooting, that's nice. Do all gangs start out with a drive-by shooting or do they work their way up.?
One person after the council meeting reported that they had kicked in their neighbors front door. The Sheriff had to be called today because the "not a gang but is a gang" entered a neighbor's back yard. The deputy was carrying mug shots of the two leaders that are brothers.
I feel so much better that we don't have a gang of twenty to twenty-five that range from 12 years old to 25 years old. I don't know, but it sure sounds like a gang to me and from what I've seen it sure looks like a gang to me.
If they know they are entering the houses on Barton and using them to hide out or hang out, don't bulldoze them. At least you know where they are. If you bulldoze them then they will spread out to the neighborhoods. Try to catch them in the houses and arrest them and drag the parents into court.
This is a problem in Grand Terrace we can't afford because of a lack of deputies. The council thinks it is more important to give money to developers than to police protection. It needs to be nipped in the bud either by the police or by citizen street patrols. Where ever they show up the men of the neighborhood should come together. Bring flashlights, cell phones and video cameras. Do not confront them, but let them know they are being watched by a group of adult men and their actions are being documented and we are not going to tolerate this behavior on our streets. If they move to another street, follow them. Maybe we can make them move up into Honey Hills and make it the council's problem to solve when it's in their front yard. Make it uncomfortable for them in Grand Terrace before they make it uncomfortable in Grand Terrace for you.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Colton High Football on GTTV Channel 3
Watch replays of the recent Colton High football games between Fontana High and Eisenhower High. The student produced shows are high quality and action packed.
Games will be shown starting Friday, November 11th and run through Sunday, November 13th.
Colton High vs. Fontana High 4 p.m. - 6 :40 p.m.
Colton High vs. Eisenhower High 6:45 p.m. - 8:55 p.m.
Watch replays of the recent Colton High football games between Fontana High and Eisenhower High. The student produced shows are high quality and action packed.
Games will be shown starting Friday, November 11th and run through Sunday, November 13th.
Colton High vs. Fontana High 4 p.m. - 6 :40 p.m.
Colton High vs. Eisenhower High 6:45 p.m. - 8:55 p.m.
From the Email Inbox... More on Manhole Builders
Dear Sitting around:
We appreciate your added information and insight. Please note that the Blog is by citizens and for citizens. Your information and opinions are welcome and will continue to be posted. Are we professionals, and lawyers, no just simple citizens trying to keep track of city hall. Please don’t confuse us with The Blue Mt. Outlook, or The Grand Terrace City News. The GrandTerraceNewsBlog is not associated with them or any other publication, or political party. GrandpaTerrace is the Blog’s Administrator and founder. However, many are the contributors.
Sitting around
wrote: Grand Pa.....
I am not sure if this would be of interest to the readers of Grand Terrace News Blog. However, I have attended all of the public meetings on the Manhole project, and not everything gets reported, nor in the context it had been expressed.
Although your enthusiasm is commendable, some of the reporting which has been placed into newspapers like the Grand Terrace News concerning the Manhole Builders application and such as on-line may not be totally in error, but certainly misleading. In the application for appeal back in July, there had been slots for signatures and reasons for the appeal. In simple terms, there were more persons willing to sign the appeal than there were slots, and there were more reasons against the project than there were slots shown. I think there were five of each on the application. Persons from all over the city were willing to sign the appeal, plus there were a good 15-16 reasons against the venture. Initially, most of the five items cited in the July appeal concerned some deficiency in the city making timely filings or statute notifications. Should there have been a debate and this item placed on the November 8th ballot, most of the city would have voted against it. A weak, but certainly truthful statement to begin with.
The most blatant expression in the five reasons was the quelling of testimony before the Planning Commission. For at the May or initial hearing, the pro-tem planning commissioner mentioned that testimony could be heard, but no vote would be forthcoming. It was obvious at this initial meeting that the application and general conditions filed before the Planning Commission was near totally incorrect and of different character. An error had been made. Most everyone was confused as to facilities noted and many other things, so several persons came up to the podium and expressed their views quickly as it meant little.
At the follow-up meeting a good month later, the application papers and the negative declaration had all been corrected. Before the item was to be brought to public testimony, the same planning commissioner mentioned they had heard it all once before, no need to repeat anything. If persons stepping up to the podium were going to say anything they had to only express something new. This was a direct cause of action for the appeal, for only the pro-tem was in attendance at both Planning Commission meetings, and thus when the second meeting (and approving vote) happened, citizens were summarily asked to step away from the podium if their complaint had been heard once before. Thus only one person on the Planning Commission was able to hear all of the testimony and the other members had to guess at what was in the other portion.
At each of the meetings it was pointed asked by the public at the podium as to if any one of the Planning Commissioners had actually visited the site and then compared what they saw to the application data. Only one member had mentioned a visit, and that member voted against the project. However, the vote was one against and two for, the two voting for having admitted they had never visited the grounds beforehand.
In the main cause of action for the appeal brought forth before the city council it was quickly concluded that in view of public interest, only a full member session of the city planning commission meeting ought to be scheduled. It was a bit of technicality, and certainly grounds for lawsuit should the dirty laundry get aired out where the public could have heard or read about it, but the G.T. council by quelling discussion had taken no action on the advise of the City Attorney. It bumped the application back down to the again to that of the Planning Commission.
During the most of the meetings of the Planning Commission, one by one as the public moved before the podium a constant theme ran over their talking points. Most of which was qualified by a statement that the residents had realized the vacant area to be suitable for development, but only of a different character. Expressedly, the point that they were not against new development, they just did not like the development being proposed, nor how it was being "Micky Mouse" handled. Warner Hodgen had attended the appeal meeting also, outlaying a fresh approach to the area, to which were was little comment 'cept in the audience. Most in attendance felt that his project may be time consuming, but it was not the cheapskate situation being proposed by Manhole Builders.
The complaints during the evening of November 3rd centered upon three items of implied non-consistent use of the land towards the neighborhood. Noise, traffic and dust. The point of mention was that the very city code used for guidance and for which the meetings and City Planning Department was to make a determination was inconsistent with the proposed use dating back to 1988 when adopted by City Council. Per Section 18.40.10 of the City code the area is to operate free of dust, noise, or other nuisances which may be objectionable. This was mentioned numerous times by the public when standing in front of the podium.
Yet another item being brought before the Planning Commission was to point out that the intended use for the local streets was inconsistent with the City Council adopted "Circulation Element" currently in effect. This was yet another strike of inconsistency against the staff and Planning Commission. For this paper guides and outlines the intended and future uses of the currently maintained streets throughout the city. It is not left for random interpretation by staff, but prepared under contract by a team of Planners, civil engineers, traffic engineers, and with public input and then voted upon by the City Council. For those unfamiliar, in rough terms this document indicates that all two lane roads west of the I-215 freeway were intended for residential use, with axle loadings approximating that of a U.P.S. delivery truck. What instead had been shown on the application was the intention to operate eighteen wheeled trucks of 65,000 pounds G.V.W. running over a road that is currently crumbling under daily passenger car use.
Although the company representative assured everyone in attendance that there would only be one truck making one or two trips per day, the City Traffic Engineer had determined otherwise and calculated a more probable number that in eventually two to three years there would be one truck going in or out every fifteen to twenty minutes each day of operation. Also alarming was the redirection of these same trucks through a residential neighborhood with sub-standard width roads for at least one year. Should a medical emergency come up as did last May, and the City fire department respond, and if an eighteen wheeler be coming along in the opposite direction, if would be the fire truck in the wrong. The red truck with flashing lights would have to back up a half mile, for the manhole truck is incapable of such.
This secondary complaint had not been mentioned in the appeal, for it was obvious. During the meeting it was pointed out in graph and via a slide show that the roadways are less than 1/2 residential quality. It was pointed out that streets in the area are about 18 to 22 feet wide, when they should be 36 to 44 feet wide. No other such narrow streets exist within the city, and now the city staff had expressed that large heavy weight trucks could operate over these roads. It was illustrated that on one particular road, due to being so narrow, the trucks would have to drive over or straddle the centerline, and thus force any opposing traffic off into the ditch at the edge. Instead of reconstructing the current roadways wider and for truck loadings, the staff report recommended patching of pot holes in the existing roadway which had been laid in the 1940's. One basic road it was illustrated had pavement only one inch thick, to which was already deteriorated. It would be potholed and useless in perhaps six months of daily average truck traffic.
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission there were several conditions placed upon the project. Most of which had to deal with dust elimination. Asphalt paving to the entrance drive and asphalt paving to internal driveways. These conditions had been erased during the hearing on the appeal, to which was a wonderment by the audience.
Now this is an important issue to ANY resident of any city as to how things get usually get done.
Yet another complaint was payment and scheduling. It is normal for a development to improve the roadways and utilities of the adjoining area once it gets a go ahead. For anyone now living in a tract home, the developer had agreed to install streets, underground utilities, etc. and give the ownership of the right-of-ways to the agency. In the instance of Manhole Builders, there was no such recommendation within the staff report. Normally, if the developer does not engineer and install "Public Improvements" then it is up to the agency, this instance the City of Grand Terrace, to pay for and install at a later date. That later date is determined by complaints, usage, accident reports, and by available funds within the budget. In other words until a few more vehicles get side swiped, drive off the cliff, a few more kids get bounced off the fender, then it will come to the attention of the City Council to allocate funding. Funds will be robbed from some other intended city project and then spent upon the problem. In this way persons living 1-2 miles away, on the other side of the city, will then get a portion of their tax dollars spent to fix an emergency problem. This is a boon for the developer who got out of paying for this in a big lump sum, as they will now pay but a minor amount. To illustrate again, it is estimated that maybe five years from now for the City of Grand Terrace to improve these same roads will cost the taxpayers about $250,000 to 1/2 million dollars. Of which every property owner will have to contribute a proportion thereto. Now, balance that against the thousands of dollars in which the city may get in property taxes for permitting developing the site. In the short run, they get the dollars which is mentioned in the Grand Terrace news article and making the Council look good for added revenues, but in the long run it may cost an injury, a life, a lawsuit, and then the taxes of property owners from those within the city who have never even driven over the streets. That same city council or staff may be long removed, but the residents will remember. For to think "Development" pays it's fair share, is not realizing the ultimate costs.
Oh. Remember when Grand Terrace Road collapsed due to rains about twelve years ago? The repair and relocation had to be paid by the city. There was to have been some storm drain improvements installed at that time. The San Bernardino County Flood Control and Water Conservation District created booklets that describe what known improvements or facilities are needed for any area. Although just paper now, they give vital information on how to prevent flooding or making such roadways collapse again. To fund these concrete improvements, it is normal for the property owners of each flood zone to either install the pipes, or set aside dollars for the eventual funding of the entire route. In this instance the applicant again escaped contributing to the funding. Additionally annoying is that they also are planning on installing permanent facilities along the proposed route of the storm drain. Not only will the residents of Grand Terrace have to eventually pay for these omitted facilities, they will also have to pay for the relocation of any structures built upon the route.
Now, look into the negative declaration and do you read of any language that cites the applicant must contribute any dollars for storm drain improvements which would protect their property? I have read many of these over the past thirty years and it is normal language for inclusion, it is also difficult to understand as to why any omission would be possible.
Getting back to the original subject, long before the first public hearing, some investigation as to site
suitability was made with the adjoining communities of Rialto, Colton, Loma Linda and the County of San Bernardino. They were contacted as to suitability of the project. Loma Linda had a NO WAY opinion. The others indicated the business would be permitted under a C.U.P. type arrangement only at one year per application. Furthermore the business would have to be located adjacent to yet another similar business, not by itself. It had been suggested that the City of Grand Terrace Planning Commission be consistent with neighboring cities and the Unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County in their zoning and land use policy.
The unanimous reasoning behind these agencies was that outdoor concrete production has been considered to be a "Dirty Industry" and therefore regulated. It is much simpler to group all such industries into one zone. You cannot compare a full scale sawmill that makes 1/16" to 1/8" chips of sawdust to the dust created by driving around a concrete plant. (Should anyone be interested, the mile square lot that the Colton Cement extraction and processing plant is currently operating on is not within any city limits, but moreover within the Unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino) The local communities do not have the resources to monitor the air pollution like the county does. It was therefore pounded into the memory of the Planning Commission that the application by Manhole Builders was not in conformance with Section 18.40.10 of the City ordinances. It also could not be implied, for the traits of the proposed facility are specifically excluded from being permitted in that zone and in others throughout the city.
A few other inconsistent things mentioned before the past Planning Commissions.
The proposed developer is actively involved in the mainline sewer business. However, the development is permitted to retain the use of septic tanks. Normal construction procedure is for individual residential expansion to connect to any sewer mainline within 300 feet, and for large scale developments, commercial and industrial developments to connect when within 500 feet. This development is directly adjacent to a mainline public sewer, yet no mention of this normal requirement. Additionally, there are no approved washing systems for vehicles nor for the concrete patterns. Normal procedure is to wash off the concrete patterns after use with water for next pouring. However, there is no mention of waste water handling. It is important for the City of Grand Terrace to eliminate one by one all instances of septic tank usages, as this will affect the ability of meet the 2025 Water Quality act. The monthly street sweeper was purchased just for meeting the water quality act. Looks as though the City will be paying for the installation of a sewer connection some time down in the future.
A third complaint was consistent. Via telephone, information was gathered about some of the equipment intended to be used for production each day. The most interesting piece of information was that hearing or ear protection is required for employees or operators when within 100 feet of the noisy stuff. This for their protection. However, this does not apply to it being used in a residential situation, when a home is only twenty feet away. It is OK to injure the hearing of a youngster, but not an employee.
I overheard one item which slipped in under the radar and perhaps the general public was that the intended site has legal access problems. For now, the best access is via a dirt road. Like mentioned earlier, it is this dirt road to which the city staff determined does not need improvements, nor all weather ingress and egress for the benefit of emergency vehicles. This existing dirt road was quietly mentioned, per deed, is for residential purposes only. Not for commercial or daily truck travels. The only
alternative for the site is via the old and original narrow one lane dirt drives running down the cliff from Vivienda. It is this little technicality that the Planning Commission cited as reason for denial. Sort of weak, but true
none the less.
Certainly, the Planning Commission as a whole knows that the applicant has low-balled the figures and kept quiet about any public improvements. One Planning Commissioner openly mentioned via simple math he could not believe some of the estimates given. Although the quoted $750,000 purchase price may seem a large sum to readers of the Grand terrace News, it is small in relation to the overall public improvement costs which would normally be associated with such a project. For originally someone did not do the math and figure out the total costs involved, including the threat to the locals within the residential areas. I must assume that the Planning Commission had other items to which they could have cited for denial, but it is this one weak item which got to be the official reason. As shown within the blog Grand Pa Terrace, there are yet more papers and reasons to deny any go ahead. For should there be yet another hearing, these other items will be brought up by attorney Tetley, and demands made which will not impact the citizens of G.T.
We appreciate your added information and insight. Please note that the Blog is by citizens and for citizens. Your information and opinions are welcome and will continue to be posted. Are we professionals, and lawyers, no just simple citizens trying to keep track of city hall. Please don’t confuse us with The Blue Mt. Outlook, or The Grand Terrace City News. The GrandTerraceNewsBlog is not associated with them or any other publication, or political party. GrandpaTerrace is the Blog’s Administrator and founder. However, many are the contributors.
Sitting around
wrote: Grand Pa.....
I am not sure if this would be of interest to the readers of Grand Terrace News Blog. However, I have attended all of the public meetings on the Manhole project, and not everything gets reported, nor in the context it had been expressed.
Although your enthusiasm is commendable, some of the reporting which has been placed into newspapers like the Grand Terrace News concerning the Manhole Builders application and such as on-line may not be totally in error, but certainly misleading. In the application for appeal back in July, there had been slots for signatures and reasons for the appeal. In simple terms, there were more persons willing to sign the appeal than there were slots, and there were more reasons against the project than there were slots shown. I think there were five of each on the application. Persons from all over the city were willing to sign the appeal, plus there were a good 15-16 reasons against the venture. Initially, most of the five items cited in the July appeal concerned some deficiency in the city making timely filings or statute notifications. Should there have been a debate and this item placed on the November 8th ballot, most of the city would have voted against it. A weak, but certainly truthful statement to begin with.
The most blatant expression in the five reasons was the quelling of testimony before the Planning Commission. For at the May or initial hearing, the pro-tem planning commissioner mentioned that testimony could be heard, but no vote would be forthcoming. It was obvious at this initial meeting that the application and general conditions filed before the Planning Commission was near totally incorrect and of different character. An error had been made. Most everyone was confused as to facilities noted and many other things, so several persons came up to the podium and expressed their views quickly as it meant little.
At the follow-up meeting a good month later, the application papers and the negative declaration had all been corrected. Before the item was to be brought to public testimony, the same planning commissioner mentioned they had heard it all once before, no need to repeat anything. If persons stepping up to the podium were going to say anything they had to only express something new. This was a direct cause of action for the appeal, for only the pro-tem was in attendance at both Planning Commission meetings, and thus when the second meeting (and approving vote) happened, citizens were summarily asked to step away from the podium if their complaint had been heard once before. Thus only one person on the Planning Commission was able to hear all of the testimony and the other members had to guess at what was in the other portion.
At each of the meetings it was pointed asked by the public at the podium as to if any one of the Planning Commissioners had actually visited the site and then compared what they saw to the application data. Only one member had mentioned a visit, and that member voted against the project. However, the vote was one against and two for, the two voting for having admitted they had never visited the grounds beforehand.
In the main cause of action for the appeal brought forth before the city council it was quickly concluded that in view of public interest, only a full member session of the city planning commission meeting ought to be scheduled. It was a bit of technicality, and certainly grounds for lawsuit should the dirty laundry get aired out where the public could have heard or read about it, but the G.T. council by quelling discussion had taken no action on the advise of the City Attorney. It bumped the application back down to the again to that of the Planning Commission.
During the most of the meetings of the Planning Commission, one by one as the public moved before the podium a constant theme ran over their talking points. Most of which was qualified by a statement that the residents had realized the vacant area to be suitable for development, but only of a different character. Expressedly, the point that they were not against new development, they just did not like the development being proposed, nor how it was being "Micky Mouse" handled. Warner Hodgen had attended the appeal meeting also, outlaying a fresh approach to the area, to which were was little comment 'cept in the audience. Most in attendance felt that his project may be time consuming, but it was not the cheapskate situation being proposed by Manhole Builders.
The complaints during the evening of November 3rd centered upon three items of implied non-consistent use of the land towards the neighborhood. Noise, traffic and dust. The point of mention was that the very city code used for guidance and for which the meetings and City Planning Department was to make a determination was inconsistent with the proposed use dating back to 1988 when adopted by City Council. Per Section 18.40.10 of the City code the area is to operate free of dust, noise, or other nuisances which may be objectionable. This was mentioned numerous times by the public when standing in front of the podium.
Yet another item being brought before the Planning Commission was to point out that the intended use for the local streets was inconsistent with the City Council adopted "Circulation Element" currently in effect. This was yet another strike of inconsistency against the staff and Planning Commission. For this paper guides and outlines the intended and future uses of the currently maintained streets throughout the city. It is not left for random interpretation by staff, but prepared under contract by a team of Planners, civil engineers, traffic engineers, and with public input and then voted upon by the City Council. For those unfamiliar, in rough terms this document indicates that all two lane roads west of the I-215 freeway were intended for residential use, with axle loadings approximating that of a U.P.S. delivery truck. What instead had been shown on the application was the intention to operate eighteen wheeled trucks of 65,000 pounds G.V.W. running over a road that is currently crumbling under daily passenger car use.
Although the company representative assured everyone in attendance that there would only be one truck making one or two trips per day, the City Traffic Engineer had determined otherwise and calculated a more probable number that in eventually two to three years there would be one truck going in or out every fifteen to twenty minutes each day of operation. Also alarming was the redirection of these same trucks through a residential neighborhood with sub-standard width roads for at least one year. Should a medical emergency come up as did last May, and the City fire department respond, and if an eighteen wheeler be coming along in the opposite direction, if would be the fire truck in the wrong. The red truck with flashing lights would have to back up a half mile, for the manhole truck is incapable of such.
This secondary complaint had not been mentioned in the appeal, for it was obvious. During the meeting it was pointed out in graph and via a slide show that the roadways are less than 1/2 residential quality. It was pointed out that streets in the area are about 18 to 22 feet wide, when they should be 36 to 44 feet wide. No other such narrow streets exist within the city, and now the city staff had expressed that large heavy weight trucks could operate over these roads. It was illustrated that on one particular road, due to being so narrow, the trucks would have to drive over or straddle the centerline, and thus force any opposing traffic off into the ditch at the edge. Instead of reconstructing the current roadways wider and for truck loadings, the staff report recommended patching of pot holes in the existing roadway which had been laid in the 1940's. One basic road it was illustrated had pavement only one inch thick, to which was already deteriorated. It would be potholed and useless in perhaps six months of daily average truck traffic.
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission there were several conditions placed upon the project. Most of which had to deal with dust elimination. Asphalt paving to the entrance drive and asphalt paving to internal driveways. These conditions had been erased during the hearing on the appeal, to which was a wonderment by the audience.
Now this is an important issue to ANY resident of any city as to how things get usually get done.
Yet another complaint was payment and scheduling. It is normal for a development to improve the roadways and utilities of the adjoining area once it gets a go ahead. For anyone now living in a tract home, the developer had agreed to install streets, underground utilities, etc. and give the ownership of the right-of-ways to the agency. In the instance of Manhole Builders, there was no such recommendation within the staff report. Normally, if the developer does not engineer and install "Public Improvements" then it is up to the agency, this instance the City of Grand Terrace, to pay for and install at a later date. That later date is determined by complaints, usage, accident reports, and by available funds within the budget. In other words until a few more vehicles get side swiped, drive off the cliff, a few more kids get bounced off the fender, then it will come to the attention of the City Council to allocate funding. Funds will be robbed from some other intended city project and then spent upon the problem. In this way persons living 1-2 miles away, on the other side of the city, will then get a portion of their tax dollars spent to fix an emergency problem. This is a boon for the developer who got out of paying for this in a big lump sum, as they will now pay but a minor amount. To illustrate again, it is estimated that maybe five years from now for the City of Grand Terrace to improve these same roads will cost the taxpayers about $250,000 to 1/2 million dollars. Of which every property owner will have to contribute a proportion thereto. Now, balance that against the thousands of dollars in which the city may get in property taxes for permitting developing the site. In the short run, they get the dollars which is mentioned in the Grand Terrace news article and making the Council look good for added revenues, but in the long run it may cost an injury, a life, a lawsuit, and then the taxes of property owners from those within the city who have never even driven over the streets. That same city council or staff may be long removed, but the residents will remember. For to think "Development" pays it's fair share, is not realizing the ultimate costs.
Oh. Remember when Grand Terrace Road collapsed due to rains about twelve years ago? The repair and relocation had to be paid by the city. There was to have been some storm drain improvements installed at that time. The San Bernardino County Flood Control and Water Conservation District created booklets that describe what known improvements or facilities are needed for any area. Although just paper now, they give vital information on how to prevent flooding or making such roadways collapse again. To fund these concrete improvements, it is normal for the property owners of each flood zone to either install the pipes, or set aside dollars for the eventual funding of the entire route. In this instance the applicant again escaped contributing to the funding. Additionally annoying is that they also are planning on installing permanent facilities along the proposed route of the storm drain. Not only will the residents of Grand Terrace have to eventually pay for these omitted facilities, they will also have to pay for the relocation of any structures built upon the route.
Now, look into the negative declaration and do you read of any language that cites the applicant must contribute any dollars for storm drain improvements which would protect their property? I have read many of these over the past thirty years and it is normal language for inclusion, it is also difficult to understand as to why any omission would be possible.
Getting back to the original subject, long before the first public hearing, some investigation as to site
suitability was made with the adjoining communities of Rialto, Colton, Loma Linda and the County of San Bernardino. They were contacted as to suitability of the project. Loma Linda had a NO WAY opinion. The others indicated the business would be permitted under a C.U.P. type arrangement only at one year per application. Furthermore the business would have to be located adjacent to yet another similar business, not by itself. It had been suggested that the City of Grand Terrace Planning Commission be consistent with neighboring cities and the Unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County in their zoning and land use policy.
The unanimous reasoning behind these agencies was that outdoor concrete production has been considered to be a "Dirty Industry" and therefore regulated. It is much simpler to group all such industries into one zone. You cannot compare a full scale sawmill that makes 1/16" to 1/8" chips of sawdust to the dust created by driving around a concrete plant. (Should anyone be interested, the mile square lot that the Colton Cement extraction and processing plant is currently operating on is not within any city limits, but moreover within the Unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino) The local communities do not have the resources to monitor the air pollution like the county does. It was therefore pounded into the memory of the Planning Commission that the application by Manhole Builders was not in conformance with Section 18.40.10 of the City ordinances. It also could not be implied, for the traits of the proposed facility are specifically excluded from being permitted in that zone and in others throughout the city.
A few other inconsistent things mentioned before the past Planning Commissions.
The proposed developer is actively involved in the mainline sewer business. However, the development is permitted to retain the use of septic tanks. Normal construction procedure is for individual residential expansion to connect to any sewer mainline within 300 feet, and for large scale developments, commercial and industrial developments to connect when within 500 feet. This development is directly adjacent to a mainline public sewer, yet no mention of this normal requirement. Additionally, there are no approved washing systems for vehicles nor for the concrete patterns. Normal procedure is to wash off the concrete patterns after use with water for next pouring. However, there is no mention of waste water handling. It is important for the City of Grand Terrace to eliminate one by one all instances of septic tank usages, as this will affect the ability of meet the 2025 Water Quality act. The monthly street sweeper was purchased just for meeting the water quality act. Looks as though the City will be paying for the installation of a sewer connection some time down in the future.
A third complaint was consistent. Via telephone, information was gathered about some of the equipment intended to be used for production each day. The most interesting piece of information was that hearing or ear protection is required for employees or operators when within 100 feet of the noisy stuff. This for their protection. However, this does not apply to it being used in a residential situation, when a home is only twenty feet away. It is OK to injure the hearing of a youngster, but not an employee.
I overheard one item which slipped in under the radar and perhaps the general public was that the intended site has legal access problems. For now, the best access is via a dirt road. Like mentioned earlier, it is this dirt road to which the city staff determined does not need improvements, nor all weather ingress and egress for the benefit of emergency vehicles. This existing dirt road was quietly mentioned, per deed, is for residential purposes only. Not for commercial or daily truck travels. The only
alternative for the site is via the old and original narrow one lane dirt drives running down the cliff from Vivienda. It is this little technicality that the Planning Commission cited as reason for denial. Sort of weak, but true
none the less.
Certainly, the Planning Commission as a whole knows that the applicant has low-balled the figures and kept quiet about any public improvements. One Planning Commissioner openly mentioned via simple math he could not believe some of the estimates given. Although the quoted $750,000 purchase price may seem a large sum to readers of the Grand terrace News, it is small in relation to the overall public improvement costs which would normally be associated with such a project. For originally someone did not do the math and figure out the total costs involved, including the threat to the locals within the residential areas. I must assume that the Planning Commission had other items to which they could have cited for denial, but it is this one weak item which got to be the official reason. As shown within the blog Grand Pa Terrace, there are yet more papers and reasons to deny any go ahead. For should there be yet another hearing, these other items will be brought up by attorney Tetley, and demands made which will not impact the citizens of G.T.
TONIGHTS AGENDA
CITY OF GRAND TERRACECOUNCIL MEETINGNOVEMBER 10, 20056:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSGRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER22795 Barton Road
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, YOU ARE ASKED TO PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Chuck Collier, U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sergeant
* Pledge of Allegiance - Don Larkin, U.S. Army Sergeant / Former Council Member
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 10-27-2005 Minutes
2. Closed Session - Settlement Agreement, Citizens for a Better Grand Terrace vs. the City of Grand Terrace
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
A. Approve Check Register Dated November 10, 2005
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 10-27-2005 Minutes
D. Booking Fee Settlement Agreement with the County of San Bernardino
E. Resolution in Support of the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006
F. Resolution - Extension for the Bicycle Transportation Account Program (BTA) Between the City of Grand Terrace and Caltrans, Agreement No. 03/04-08S-BD-02
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment.
5. REPORTS -
A. Committee Reports
1. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of October 4, 2005
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. A Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 (TTM 16624) for a 15 Unit Single Family Residential Development with one Open Space Lot in the City of Grand Terrace, California
An Ordinance Approving Specific Plan No. 04-01 (SP-04-02) for a Lot Subdivision with Subdivision with 15 Single Family Detached Units and One Open Space Lot on a Two Acre Site Located on The North Side of DeBerry Street Between the Gage Canal on the West and Mt. Vernon on the East and Environmental Review Case No. 04-01 (E-04-01) - Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
B.City Wide User Fee and Rate Study
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand, California, Amending Title 4 of the Municipal Code and Establishing User Fees
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California Establishing Fines for Failure to Obtain a Street Cut Permit and Failure to Perform Street Cut Construction in Accordance to the Specifications as Described in the Specifications for Construction Within the Public Right of Way
8. NEW BUSINESS - None
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, December 8, 2005 AT 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 11-10-2005 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 12-01-2005.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSGRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER22795 Barton Road
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, YOU ARE ASKED TO PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Chuck Collier, U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sergeant
* Pledge of Allegiance - Don Larkin, U.S. Army Sergeant / Former Council Member
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 10-27-2005 Minutes
2. Closed Session - Settlement Agreement, Citizens for a Better Grand Terrace vs. the City of Grand Terrace
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
A. Approve Check Register Dated November 10, 2005
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 10-27-2005 Minutes
D. Booking Fee Settlement Agreement with the County of San Bernardino
E. Resolution in Support of the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006
F. Resolution - Extension for the Bicycle Transportation Account Program (BTA) Between the City of Grand Terrace and Caltrans, Agreement No. 03/04-08S-BD-02
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment.
5. REPORTS -
A. Committee Reports
1. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of October 4, 2005
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. A Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 (TTM 16624) for a 15 Unit Single Family Residential Development with one Open Space Lot in the City of Grand Terrace, California
An Ordinance Approving Specific Plan No. 04-01 (SP-04-02) for a Lot Subdivision with Subdivision with 15 Single Family Detached Units and One Open Space Lot on a Two Acre Site Located on The North Side of DeBerry Street Between the Gage Canal on the West and Mt. Vernon on the East and Environmental Review Case No. 04-01 (E-04-01) - Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
B.City Wide User Fee and Rate Study
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand, California, Amending Title 4 of the Municipal Code and Establishing User Fees
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California Establishing Fines for Failure to Obtain a Street Cut Permit and Failure to Perform Street Cut Construction in Accordance to the Specifications as Described in the Specifications for Construction Within the Public Right of Way
8. NEW BUSINESS - None
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, December 8, 2005 AT 7:30 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 11-10-2005 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 12-01-2005.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Manhole Builders Rejected By Planning Commission
The issues around the prior approval of the Manhole Builder's Building and Use Plan should remain in the forefront of the Citizens Attention. The Manhole Builders have yet another appeal to the City Council to have their plan approved, in spite of serious objections of the South Cost Air Quality Control Board, and the neighbors of the proposed Cement Manhole Molding Facility.
Lets review:
First the area is or was a working farm or ranch. It has flooded or become swamped several times in the past 50 years by raising groundwater. It is up wind from the Elementary School and other residential areas. It is across the river from a proposed county park development known as Colton Regional Park. The roads to the property are not of sufficient class or rating to handle heavy traffic or heavy vehicles.
How the project made it through the Grand Terrace Planning Department included a Environmental Impact Declaration, which received a Negative Declaration, (Which Means it Passed, Negative being Good in this case). The problem with this is that the paperwork used for this Declaration was a copy of a filing for a gas station, not the Manhole Builder's Property or Plan. If it were not for the people constantly asking the city for documents this would have just passed through the Planning Department, and Planning Commission, and the City Council.
The Past posts on Manhole Builders included letters from South Coast Air Quality Control District, and the bad Application or Environmental Impact Mitigation Study. If you want copies of these documents you can either email me, and I'll send them to you as an attachment, or do a search on this blog.. Use the search box at the top of the blog page put in Manhole and you will find the history of posts on this subject.
It is Gramp's opinion that this project got a nod from the City Manager, and City Staff went through the motions and were going to facilitate the business owner as a result of Tom's Nod. The Tom Schwab hired or appointed Traffic Engineer, City Engineer, and everyone else hired to serve at the pleasure of Tom Schwab doing their least best effort in providing services, true assessments, for the citizens of this city or the businesses trying to locate here.
The City Planning Department, The City of Grand Terrace, and the individuals hired by or under contract to the City should be sued by the Manhole Builders as they have misrepresented the acceptability of use of that piece of property for their intended use. They under assessed the needed improvements to roads and public facilities for the desired business use. They filed and approved improper documents. This of course costs the business owners a bit of cash.
Yes Citizens, you should have to pay too. It is YOUR government. You aren't insisting that the City Manager be Fired, You aren't insisting that the City Planning Department Get their act together. You aren't insisting that Ethical Contract Practices are used. YOU/WE are at fault in this too. We continue to accept the No Bid Development of the Senior Villas, the Town Center, and the OAC area... These Tom Schwab Legacy Building Pie in the Sky Plans are going to continue to fester as cancers to our town unless they are stopped, and their perpetrators are dealt with.
What to do now.
I suggest strongly that the property be purchased from Manhole Builders and donated to the County Regional Park System. It could be used as an Equestrian/Bike Center and Campground for the future Santa Ann River Trail System. When the ground water swamps the property the facility could be closed until the water table drops and the land dries out. I have made such a recommendation to the Wetlands Conservancy and the County. What have you done?
Lets review:
First the area is or was a working farm or ranch. It has flooded or become swamped several times in the past 50 years by raising groundwater. It is up wind from the Elementary School and other residential areas. It is across the river from a proposed county park development known as Colton Regional Park. The roads to the property are not of sufficient class or rating to handle heavy traffic or heavy vehicles.
How the project made it through the Grand Terrace Planning Department included a Environmental Impact Declaration, which received a Negative Declaration, (Which Means it Passed, Negative being Good in this case). The problem with this is that the paperwork used for this Declaration was a copy of a filing for a gas station, not the Manhole Builder's Property or Plan. If it were not for the people constantly asking the city for documents this would have just passed through the Planning Department, and Planning Commission, and the City Council.
The Past posts on Manhole Builders included letters from South Coast Air Quality Control District, and the bad Application or Environmental Impact Mitigation Study. If you want copies of these documents you can either email me, and I'll send them to you as an attachment, or do a search on this blog.. Use the search box at the top of the blog page put in Manhole and you will find the history of posts on this subject.
It is Gramp's opinion that this project got a nod from the City Manager, and City Staff went through the motions and were going to facilitate the business owner as a result of Tom's Nod. The Tom Schwab hired or appointed Traffic Engineer, City Engineer, and everyone else hired to serve at the pleasure of Tom Schwab doing their least best effort in providing services, true assessments, for the citizens of this city or the businesses trying to locate here.
The City Planning Department, The City of Grand Terrace, and the individuals hired by or under contract to the City should be sued by the Manhole Builders as they have misrepresented the acceptability of use of that piece of property for their intended use. They under assessed the needed improvements to roads and public facilities for the desired business use. They filed and approved improper documents. This of course costs the business owners a bit of cash.
Yes Citizens, you should have to pay too. It is YOUR government. You aren't insisting that the City Manager be Fired, You aren't insisting that the City Planning Department Get their act together. You aren't insisting that Ethical Contract Practices are used. YOU/WE are at fault in this too. We continue to accept the No Bid Development of the Senior Villas, the Town Center, and the OAC area... These Tom Schwab Legacy Building Pie in the Sky Plans are going to continue to fester as cancers to our town unless they are stopped, and their perpetrators are dealt with.
What to do now.
I suggest strongly that the property be purchased from Manhole Builders and donated to the County Regional Park System. It could be used as an Equestrian/Bike Center and Campground for the future Santa Ann River Trail System. When the ground water swamps the property the facility could be closed until the water table drops and the land dries out. I have made such a recommendation to the Wetlands Conservancy and the County. What have you done?
From the Email InBox:
Dear Gramps Please Post:
Has anyone noticed that the council is going into closed session to settle the law suit brought by Citizens for a Better Grand Terrace against the O.A.C without ever telling the citizens or the Press what it was about or by whom it was brought or how much they are suing for.
I guess like every thing else it's none of the voters business. Like the fee increase. When City Manager Tom Schwab was asked at a council meeting if there were going to be more tax allocation bonds issued he said no. That the city was in the black and doing well financially.
If you recall it was either Paul's article or Steve Wall's article on the budget that said the short fall would come out of our surplus. Must have been used up already.
Gramps I hope you post some of the rate schedule so folks building in GT can see how much more they will have to pay to build.
Gramps reply: The rates are posted.
THE CLOSED MEETING IS ALSO NOTED
Has anyone noticed that the council is going into closed session to settle the law suit brought by Citizens for a Better Grand Terrace against the O.A.C without ever telling the citizens or the Press what it was about or by whom it was brought or how much they are suing for.
I guess like every thing else it's none of the voters business. Like the fee increase. When City Manager Tom Schwab was asked at a council meeting if there were going to be more tax allocation bonds issued he said no. That the city was in the black and doing well financially.
If you recall it was either Paul's article or Steve Wall's article on the budget that said the short fall would come out of our surplus. Must have been used up already.
Gramps I hope you post some of the rate schedule so folks building in GT can see how much more they will have to pay to build.
Gramps reply: The rates are posted.
THE CLOSED MEETING IS ALSO NOTED
Arrests #1 and #2 # 3 11/2005
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300485
DATE: 11/08/2005 TIME: 2223ARREST
DATE: 11/08/2005 TIME: 2140 LOC: 22251 CARHART AVE.,G.T. AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/09/2005 TIME: 1801 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: SEPULVEDA FIRST: SUMMER MIDDLE: DOB: 08/03/1976
SEX: F RACE: H HT: 5 09 WT: 280 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: CASHIER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC487(A) FEL ORIGINAL $250,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511340944
DATE: 11/06/2005 TIME: 1627
ARREST DATE: 11/06/2005 TIME: 0210
LOC: NEWPORT/CANAL AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/06/2005 TIME: 2321 FACILITY:
NAME: LAST: TORRES FIRST: OSCAR MIDDLE:
DOB: 04/20/1959 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 05 WT: 167 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BLU
OCCUPATION: OTHER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
VC12500(A) MISD ORIGINAL $20,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
___________________________________________________
________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511340545
DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 1035
ARREST DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 0531
LOC: MICHIGAN/DE BERRY ST. AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: CELIS FIRST: ROBERT MIDDLE: ERIC
DOB: 12/21/1974 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 11 WT: 190 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC182(A)(1) FEL ORIGINAL $20,000.00
PC664/10851 FEL ORIGINAL
_____________________________________________
Charge Detail
PC182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime.
PC664. Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts, as follows:
___________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300208
DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 1043
ARREST DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 0531
LOC: MICHIGAN JUST N OF DEBERR
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 1440 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: MANRIQUEZ FIRST: MAURILLO MIDDLE: FRANSICO
DOB: 02/22/1987 SEX: M RACE: H
HT: 5 11 WT: 135 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11364 MISD ORIGINAL $5,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
____________________________________________________ Charge Detail
HS11364. (a) It is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking (1) a controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055, or (2) a controlled substance which is a narcotic drug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.
_______________________________________
DATE: 11/08/2005 TIME: 2223ARREST
DATE: 11/08/2005 TIME: 2140 LOC: 22251 CARHART AVE.,G.T. AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/09/2005 TIME: 1801 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: SEPULVEDA FIRST: SUMMER MIDDLE: DOB: 08/03/1976
SEX: F RACE: H HT: 5 09 WT: 280 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: CASHIER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC487(A) FEL ORIGINAL $250,000.00 PRETRIAL-RELEASE
____________________________________________________
_______________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511340944
DATE: 11/06/2005 TIME: 1627
ARREST DATE: 11/06/2005 TIME: 0210
LOC: NEWPORT/CANAL AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/06/2005 TIME: 2321 FACILITY:
NAME: LAST: TORRES FIRST: OSCAR MIDDLE:
DOB: 04/20/1959 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 05 WT: 167 HAIR: BRO EYE COLOR: BLU
OCCUPATION: OTHER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
VC12500(A) MISD ORIGINAL $20,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
___________________________________________________
________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511340545
DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 1035
ARREST DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 0531
LOC: MICHIGAN/DE BERRY ST. AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: CELIS FIRST: ROBERT MIDDLE: ERIC
DOB: 12/21/1974 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 11 WT: 190 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC182(A)(1) FEL ORIGINAL $20,000.00
PC664/10851 FEL ORIGINAL
_____________________________________________
Charge Detail
PC182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime.
PC664. Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts, as follows:
___________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0511300208
DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 1043
ARREST DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 0531
LOC: MICHIGAN JUST N OF DEBERR
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 11/04/2005 TIME: 1440 FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: MANRIQUEZ FIRST: MAURILLO MIDDLE: FRANSICO
DOB: 02/22/1987 SEX: M RACE: H
HT: 5 11 WT: 135 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11364 MISD ORIGINAL $5,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
____________________________________________________ Charge Detail
HS11364. (a) It is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking (1) a controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055, or (2) a controlled substance which is a narcotic drug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.
_______________________________________
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Things to do in GT
Woman's Club Hamburger LUNCH and GT COUNTRY FAIR
A good time for the Citizens to get to know one another, and share a meal with friends, family and community.
The GT Woman's Club provides service and support to our community it is now time to support them. The food is good, so Show UP, eat, and check out the crafts.
Lion's Club Pancake Breakfast should also be on your things to do list. These activities are true examples of Grand Terrace Traditions.. Please join in the activity, join the club, and support their activities in the City.
A good time for the Citizens to get to know one another, and share a meal with friends, family and community.
The GT Woman's Club provides service and support to our community it is now time to support them. The food is good, so Show UP, eat, and check out the crafts.
Lion's Club Pancake Breakfast should also be on your things to do list. These activities are true examples of Grand Terrace Traditions.. Please join in the activity, join the club, and support their activities in the City.
More from the Email Inbox:
The appeal of Manhole Builders was heard an only item on agenda night of Nov. 3. Meeting lasted from 7 PM until nearly 11 PM. Many many persons testified. (This Agenda was not Posted on the City Web Site)
On motion by Matt to deny the application the comissioners voted 3:1 against Manhole Builders. Up until vote time, was much emotion. A never ending line of persons wanting to talk against the project. As making everyone uneasy, the Planning Comission stayed quiet through most testimony.
After an adjurnment at about 10:20PM, the Comissioners then unloaded on to the staff, the applicant and the city traffic engineer. Made me feel uneasy, but they asked direct questions about items which interested me personally. I didn't like the answers, and neither did they. They especially did not like what they got from the traffic engineer, who I found out had never visited the site.
Comissioner Comstock mentioned he drove over to it two time in past month, and the papers and plans certainly did not represent what he saw. Spooky thing was when Matt asked if someone wasn't going to say something or make ANY motion. They all looked at the floor. He asked for motion to deny, and a seconding came before he could get the statement out.
Official reason was lack of legal acces, as current deed cites for "Residential purposes only".
On motion by Matt to deny the application the comissioners voted 3:1 against Manhole Builders. Up until vote time, was much emotion. A never ending line of persons wanting to talk against the project. As making everyone uneasy, the Planning Comission stayed quiet through most testimony.
After an adjurnment at about 10:20PM, the Comissioners then unloaded on to the staff, the applicant and the city traffic engineer. Made me feel uneasy, but they asked direct questions about items which interested me personally. I didn't like the answers, and neither did they. They especially did not like what they got from the traffic engineer, who I found out had never visited the site.
Comissioner Comstock mentioned he drove over to it two time in past month, and the papers and plans certainly did not represent what he saw. Spooky thing was when Matt asked if someone wasn't going to say something or make ANY motion. They all looked at the floor. He asked for motion to deny, and a seconding came before he could get the statement out.
Official reason was lack of legal acces, as current deed cites for "Residential purposes only".
Eminent Domain
House Vote Counters Supreme Court Decision on Eminent Domain, Citing Sanctity of the Home
There may be HOPE YET
From the Email InBox:
California Aqueduct Maintenance to begin soon in Grand Terrace
Starting the 26th of November though December 5th, there will be three sites that will drain a total of 2 ½ acre feet of water down streets and into storm drains. The most affected areas will be Grand Terrace Road/Vista Grande and the Arliss/Eton/Holly/Brentwood area . The project is part of the regular maintenance of the aqueduct that brings 260,000 gallons per minute--equivalent to 6 large swimming pools filled per minute through our city. Once the draining is completed in early December, the aqueduct will be re-filled with some air-related noises. Any questions, please call Community Services at 430-2201.
Citizen Action Does Work
I want to thank all the Citizens who have contributed to the increased level of participation in City Planning, and City Council Operations, and City Management.
Many different people contribute in different ways. It takes some one to notice the improper environmental Declaration. (Posted on this Blog), it takes someone to hire a lawyer, talk to neighbors, and petition the AQMD, and alert other agencies of the impact of a plan.
There is in my opinion more that needs to be discovered about the decisions made by our City Manager, City Redevelopment Agency, City Planning Department. It takes continued effort to raise these questions, and issues into the light of day. The NO BID CONTRACT for the Senior Villas, the Ill Named and Ill planned OAC. Still don't pass the sniff test.
Rather than address these real citizen concerns the Council just says, we Citizens need to be educated on the "Good" the RDA does for the city.. Fine, good but at what cost? Is this the issue or not?
How can the city not be investigated for conflict of interest issues when ever a transaction is done. The business practices of this city are corrupt just as practices in their procedural process, even IF no one is making money off the contracts, and decisions, there is apparent favoritism to particular realtors, residents, and citizens, and contractors. Good old Boyism...
There is more work to do... Thanks to all who have contributed thus far.
Many different people contribute in different ways. It takes some one to notice the improper environmental Declaration. (Posted on this Blog), it takes someone to hire a lawyer, talk to neighbors, and petition the AQMD, and alert other agencies of the impact of a plan.
There is in my opinion more that needs to be discovered about the decisions made by our City Manager, City Redevelopment Agency, City Planning Department. It takes continued effort to raise these questions, and issues into the light of day. The NO BID CONTRACT for the Senior Villas, the Ill Named and Ill planned OAC. Still don't pass the sniff test.
Rather than address these real citizen concerns the Council just says, we Citizens need to be educated on the "Good" the RDA does for the city.. Fine, good but at what cost? Is this the issue or not?
How can the city not be investigated for conflict of interest issues when ever a transaction is done. The business practices of this city are corrupt just as practices in their procedural process, even IF no one is making money off the contracts, and decisions, there is apparent favoritism to particular realtors, residents, and citizens, and contractors. Good old Boyism...
There is more work to do... Thanks to all who have contributed thus far.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Sex Offenders on De Berry
Three registered sex offenders living less than 1/2 mile from Terrace View Middle School
22579 DEBERRY ST.
GRAND TERRACE, CA 923135515
Multiple offenders at this address
QUINTANA, DANA JAY - ASSAULT W/INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE, SODOMY, OR ORAL COPULATION
GORMAN, BRENT TERRY -SEX PENETRATION W/FOREIGN OBJ:VICTIM UNAWARE NATURE OF ACT
HARRIS, MARIE ROBINSON - ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 16 YEARS
To view pictures go to http://meganslaw.ca.gov/
22579 DEBERRY ST.
GRAND TERRACE, CA 923135515
Multiple offenders at this address
QUINTANA, DANA JAY - ASSAULT W/INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE, SODOMY, OR ORAL COPULATION
GORMAN, BRENT TERRY -SEX PENETRATION W/FOREIGN OBJ:VICTIM UNAWARE NATURE OF ACT
HARRIS, MARIE ROBINSON - ORAL COPULATION WITH PERSON UNDER 16 YEARS
To view pictures go to http://meganslaw.ca.gov/
Rental Inspection Fees Passed
Owners of rental properties in the city will have to pay an annual inspection fee and will be subject to fines if they don't maintain their homes and apartments in acceptable condition.
Under the program, which was approved by the City Council last week, apartment owners with 200 or more units will pay $36 per unit per year to have the exterior of their properties inspected by a code enforcement officer.
Apartment owners with 199 units or less will pay $48 per unit per year for the inspection.
Owners of single-family homes will be charged $95 per home per year.
Under the program, which was approved by the City Council last week, apartment owners with 200 or more units will pay $36 per unit per year to have the exterior of their properties inspected by a code enforcement officer.
Apartment owners with 199 units or less will pay $48 per unit per year for the inspection.
Owners of single-family homes will be charged $95 per home per year.
Manhole Builders
Last night many citizens showed up for the final decision involving the construction of a manhole construction plant in Grand Terrace. While the Planning Department suggested that it be approved, the Planning Commission listened to the citizens complaints of air pollution, oversized & increased traffic in their neighborhoods, and noise pollution. Some pleaded for the safety of their children while they play in the already narrow streets. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to deny their application based on inaccessibility to the property and in support of it's citizens.
Letters from the Planning Department of permits being resended from the Manhole Builders were circulating the room while the owner's insisted that the permits were already purchased and believed they had the blessing of the City. They stated that the reports they had showed no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Last night prayers were answered. We sought to change a wrong in our city and won. Now, I just hope we can change their minds about the so called "LOWES" project on Barton Road. While applications have not been filed, we all know things are not done in the proper order, so it will take an even greater support of the Grand Terrace Citizens, and act of God, to change the direction of our Planning Department.
Letters from the Planning Department of permits being resended from the Manhole Builders were circulating the room while the owner's insisted that the permits were already purchased and believed they had the blessing of the City. They stated that the reports they had showed no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Last night prayers were answered. We sought to change a wrong in our city and won. Now, I just hope we can change their minds about the so called "LOWES" project on Barton Road. While applications have not been filed, we all know things are not done in the proper order, so it will take an even greater support of the Grand Terrace Citizens, and act of God, to change the direction of our Planning Department.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Sex Offenders in our City
Per Megan's Law Website
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
Photos on the website with convictions and arrests.
BROOKS,DAVID L
22113 GRAND TERRACE RD APT # 11
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
CAREY,CHARLES DANIEL
22262 NAPA CT
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
ESTRADA,FELIPE OLVERA
21845 GRAND TERRACE RD APT # #28
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
GORMAN,BRENT TERRY
Specific address not subject to disclosure
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
HARRIS,MARIE ROBINSON
Specific address not subject to disclosure
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
QUINTANA,DANA JAY
Specific address not subject to disclosure GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
RAMIREZ,ABEL
12731 VIVIENDA
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
SIQUIAN,MICHAEL JOHN
23070 SISKIN CT
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
Photos on the website with convictions and arrests.
BROOKS,DAVID L
22113 GRAND TERRACE RD APT # 11
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
CAREY,CHARLES DANIEL
22262 NAPA CT
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
ESTRADA,FELIPE OLVERA
21845 GRAND TERRACE RD APT # #28
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
GORMAN,BRENT TERRY
Specific address not subject to disclosure
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
HARRIS,MARIE ROBINSON
Specific address not subject to disclosure
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
QUINTANA,DANA JAY
Specific address not subject to disclosure GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
RAMIREZ,ABEL
12731 VIVIENDA
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
SIQUIAN,MICHAEL JOHN
23070 SISKIN CT
GRAND TERRACE 92313 SAN BERNARDINO
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
From the Email InBox
Grand Pa...
I am one of those folks who is being affected by theManhole Builder's project on the west side of G.T. This project had been appealed to the City Council, and is coming up before the Planning Commission once again on the third of November. I have been in the Land Development business for better than thirty years now. In going through the application and Environmental papers filed with theG.T. Planning Department I generally know the language being used or being stated and thus found numerous errors and misconceptions.
Even the plan for the project was very simple, and really did not have a lot of detail on it as to how they were going to mitigate known problems. The Asst. Planning Dept. person explained that there were zero mitigation issues, as there was zero problems with the development. Although the papers were copies of a gasoline service station application they felt the two projects were similar enough in outward appearances.
Upon attending the Planning Commission meeting(s) for the project, I was astounded to hear that a couple of the Planning Commissioners had .....NEVER ACTUALLYVISITED THE SITE, but were ready to approve it based upon the appearances of the plans and the testimony of the lovely applicant.
One Planning Commissioner did mention ... out loud... that he had visited the site and found it totally different than what was on the plans, and the whole terrain and neighborhood different than he had imagined. He mentioned the site was suitable for development, just not for the size and type of business being proposed.
The site is additionally planning on establishing and routing all of the daily truck traffic through and across streets within the City of Colton. He did not find anyevidence that the City of Colton had approved such newTruck Routes through their city. It was found that they did get a complementary telephone call from the City of G.T. but were told that addition of additionof 65,000 pound trucks traversing their residential streets would have zero impact.
Persons representing the City of Colton were urged to stay away from the meeting. I wonder if the City of Colton is well aware of the impact this new truck traffic will create. One of the residents of the City of G.T. who does notlive in the area had become suspicious of the application back in early 2005. She found that there were numerous "Fast Track" fixes being proposed to which the public had not been made aware of.
Essentially, she investigated development laws and found the Planning Department proceedure to be regularly negligent on proceedures. The most glaring and easy to spot had to do with timely filing and making notice to the public of their findings. TheCity Planners were not following the proceedures established in Sacramento. They were instead trying to hurry along any project to final approval stage sothat building permits could be issued ..... and the project reassessed and placed on to next year's tax rolls.
In my opinion, this looks like the City has been prostituting itself to make the next year's budget. I am sure many readers of your blog know where to cut out fluff in the yearly budget instead. However, getting back here, the South Coast Air Quality Board just recenty sent notice that the Manhole Builder's project may not meet air quality requirements. The locals had been aiming a three/four pronged attack on the project, and air quality wasjust one of these. An athmatic family had beencertainly vocal about the project, but that got blownaway by the P.C. (Too bad you live where you do). In talking to the A.Q.M.D. the non-resident had found that there had been a "Rubber stamped" approval, based upon the air quality as mentioned in the environmental report.
The report (to which I have read) leads one tobeleive that the City of G.T. has in fact their own Air Quality members and employees and they are fullycapable of reading and making judgements regarding future impacts. The non-resident confronted the A.Q.M.D. and asked them to not gather any implications, but instead read the conclusions one more time, then draw their own conclusions. This the A.Q.M.D. did and found they were approving information based upon their own loosly based information, to which the City staff re-wrote, and made it seem original. Thus the A.Q.M.D. again found the whole thing was based upon assumptions by non-professionals.
The A.Q.M.D. has found the project not to be incompliance with established air quality ordinances. As mentioned, I have been in the Land Development profession for more than thirty years now. The ManholeBuilder's project in miniature in comparision to a few which I have completed. However, being fair, I have never completed a project within the City limits of G.T. but I do find many of their rules and ordinances rather lacking in foundation.
The whole process to initiate and complete a project is done verbally, for the are few written guidelines. This looks to be worse soon, as the city Planning Director has been pushing a huge document that essentially says "Talk to me forapproval" and I will see you get the approvals.
If anyone reads through the document, it has essentially lined out any written or descriptive elements to what can be done in any neighborhood. Zoning rules are being eliminated right and left. If passed by CityCouncil, the problems seen with the new Adult LivingCenter will become nil. For whatever the currentPlanning Director proposes, (no matter how outrageous), will then meet city code and no adverse discussion can be heard.
Thus the simple act of creating a new zone for senior apartments, will be on the non-discussion list, and be rubber stamped OK by the Planning Commission and the City Council. With myexperience, this is dangerous language should it bepassed. For on-going projects like the OutdoorActivity Center would be a non-issue, and aimed forautomatic approval without public comment. If anyonewere to file a lawsuit against a project, they couldnot cite non-conformance.
You may be interested in thematters going before the G.T. City Manager, where as I have never seen such a document before, and matters now going before the Planning Department are drawing my attention. For if passed, this opens up the whole city to whatever scheme a developer may consider.
And remember, as in the Manhole Builder's project, the Planners can then write off any public improvements. Pay attention here for this is a significant complaint to which everyone ought to be made aware of. It will then be up to the citizens of G.T. to equally pay for simple things like street widening (very expensive),water systems, storm drains (also expensive) and acquisition of land for street right-of-ways. For this five acre parcel, it would amount to a savings of several hundred thousand dollars now, and in the future could cost a good million dollars in which the residents of the city would have to pay for. However, as mentioned, the City will be able to get a few thousand in property taxes to offset this.
The Cities within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have a general policy that if you or I comeup with a scheme to develop a parcel and make a buckoff, then it is up to us as the developer to pay for the public improvements. The City of G.T. has revised the language now to indicate that any development is of benefit to the residents as a whole, and public improvements ought to be paid by the current landowners throughout the whole city. If there isn't sufficient money in the budget to pave a road, well then it will have to wait a few years until there are dollars. It may take twenty years, but eventially the work will get done.
I live on a substandard residential street to which we have an accident on once per year. They get so commonplace we forget them. Soon we will be permitting 65,000 pound truck traffic on the already narrow streets. If a headon collision occurs, or as so recently happened the ambulance was delayed another ten minutes in reaching an address because of opposing traffic, or yet another kid gets bounced off the fender of a auto, well it wasn't myfault everyone can say truthfully.
About ten years ago we had a major road collapse due to rain. It stayed shut for nearly a year. As the filed papers ignored the standard requirements for flood control over this project, next time it collapes we ALL get to pay then.
Just thought your readers would be interested in this message. I am certain the City of Colton would have been had they read your timely information.
GrandpaTerrace Says:
Dear writer... thanks for a great review of the status of the Manhole Builders Project... This ongoing issue I hope there is more information on the subject in the near future..
I am one of those folks who is being affected by theManhole Builder's project on the west side of G.T. This project had been appealed to the City Council, and is coming up before the Planning Commission once again on the third of November. I have been in the Land Development business for better than thirty years now. In going through the application and Environmental papers filed with theG.T. Planning Department I generally know the language being used or being stated and thus found numerous errors and misconceptions.
Even the plan for the project was very simple, and really did not have a lot of detail on it as to how they were going to mitigate known problems. The Asst. Planning Dept. person explained that there were zero mitigation issues, as there was zero problems with the development. Although the papers were copies of a gasoline service station application they felt the two projects were similar enough in outward appearances.
Upon attending the Planning Commission meeting(s) for the project, I was astounded to hear that a couple of the Planning Commissioners had .....NEVER ACTUALLYVISITED THE SITE, but were ready to approve it based upon the appearances of the plans and the testimony of the lovely applicant.
One Planning Commissioner did mention ... out loud... that he had visited the site and found it totally different than what was on the plans, and the whole terrain and neighborhood different than he had imagined. He mentioned the site was suitable for development, just not for the size and type of business being proposed.
The site is additionally planning on establishing and routing all of the daily truck traffic through and across streets within the City of Colton. He did not find anyevidence that the City of Colton had approved such newTruck Routes through their city. It was found that they did get a complementary telephone call from the City of G.T. but were told that addition of additionof 65,000 pound trucks traversing their residential streets would have zero impact.
Persons representing the City of Colton were urged to stay away from the meeting. I wonder if the City of Colton is well aware of the impact this new truck traffic will create. One of the residents of the City of G.T. who does notlive in the area had become suspicious of the application back in early 2005. She found that there were numerous "Fast Track" fixes being proposed to which the public had not been made aware of.
Essentially, she investigated development laws and found the Planning Department proceedure to be regularly negligent on proceedures. The most glaring and easy to spot had to do with timely filing and making notice to the public of their findings. TheCity Planners were not following the proceedures established in Sacramento. They were instead trying to hurry along any project to final approval stage sothat building permits could be issued ..... and the project reassessed and placed on to next year's tax rolls.
In my opinion, this looks like the City has been prostituting itself to make the next year's budget. I am sure many readers of your blog know where to cut out fluff in the yearly budget instead. However, getting back here, the South Coast Air Quality Board just recenty sent notice that the Manhole Builder's project may not meet air quality requirements. The locals had been aiming a three/four pronged attack on the project, and air quality wasjust one of these. An athmatic family had beencertainly vocal about the project, but that got blownaway by the P.C. (Too bad you live where you do). In talking to the A.Q.M.D. the non-resident had found that there had been a "Rubber stamped" approval, based upon the air quality as mentioned in the environmental report.
The report (to which I have read) leads one tobeleive that the City of G.T. has in fact their own Air Quality members and employees and they are fullycapable of reading and making judgements regarding future impacts. The non-resident confronted the A.Q.M.D. and asked them to not gather any implications, but instead read the conclusions one more time, then draw their own conclusions. This the A.Q.M.D. did and found they were approving information based upon their own loosly based information, to which the City staff re-wrote, and made it seem original. Thus the A.Q.M.D. again found the whole thing was based upon assumptions by non-professionals.
The A.Q.M.D. has found the project not to be incompliance with established air quality ordinances. As mentioned, I have been in the Land Development profession for more than thirty years now. The ManholeBuilder's project in miniature in comparision to a few which I have completed. However, being fair, I have never completed a project within the City limits of G.T. but I do find many of their rules and ordinances rather lacking in foundation.
The whole process to initiate and complete a project is done verbally, for the are few written guidelines. This looks to be worse soon, as the city Planning Director has been pushing a huge document that essentially says "Talk to me forapproval" and I will see you get the approvals.
If anyone reads through the document, it has essentially lined out any written or descriptive elements to what can be done in any neighborhood. Zoning rules are being eliminated right and left. If passed by CityCouncil, the problems seen with the new Adult LivingCenter will become nil. For whatever the currentPlanning Director proposes, (no matter how outrageous), will then meet city code and no adverse discussion can be heard.
Thus the simple act of creating a new zone for senior apartments, will be on the non-discussion list, and be rubber stamped OK by the Planning Commission and the City Council. With myexperience, this is dangerous language should it bepassed. For on-going projects like the OutdoorActivity Center would be a non-issue, and aimed forautomatic approval without public comment. If anyonewere to file a lawsuit against a project, they couldnot cite non-conformance.
You may be interested in thematters going before the G.T. City Manager, where as I have never seen such a document before, and matters now going before the Planning Department are drawing my attention. For if passed, this opens up the whole city to whatever scheme a developer may consider.
And remember, as in the Manhole Builder's project, the Planners can then write off any public improvements. Pay attention here for this is a significant complaint to which everyone ought to be made aware of. It will then be up to the citizens of G.T. to equally pay for simple things like street widening (very expensive),water systems, storm drains (also expensive) and acquisition of land for street right-of-ways. For this five acre parcel, it would amount to a savings of several hundred thousand dollars now, and in the future could cost a good million dollars in which the residents of the city would have to pay for. However, as mentioned, the City will be able to get a few thousand in property taxes to offset this.
The Cities within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have a general policy that if you or I comeup with a scheme to develop a parcel and make a buckoff, then it is up to us as the developer to pay for the public improvements. The City of G.T. has revised the language now to indicate that any development is of benefit to the residents as a whole, and public improvements ought to be paid by the current landowners throughout the whole city. If there isn't sufficient money in the budget to pave a road, well then it will have to wait a few years until there are dollars. It may take twenty years, but eventially the work will get done.
I live on a substandard residential street to which we have an accident on once per year. They get so commonplace we forget them. Soon we will be permitting 65,000 pound truck traffic on the already narrow streets. If a headon collision occurs, or as so recently happened the ambulance was delayed another ten minutes in reaching an address because of opposing traffic, or yet another kid gets bounced off the fender of a auto, well it wasn't myfault everyone can say truthfully.
About ten years ago we had a major road collapse due to rain. It stayed shut for nearly a year. As the filed papers ignored the standard requirements for flood control over this project, next time it collapes we ALL get to pay then.
Just thought your readers would be interested in this message. I am certain the City of Colton would have been had they read your timely information.
GrandpaTerrace Says:
Dear writer... thanks for a great review of the status of the Manhole Builders Project... This ongoing issue I hope there is more information on the subject in the near future..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)